TeleGeography 2004 Global Telecommunications Traffic Statistics and Commentary This work is based on sources believed to be reliable, but the publisher does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information for any purpose and is not responsible for any errors or omissions. This work is for the confidential use of subscribers. Neither the whole nor any part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded or other­ wise, without prior written consent from PriMetrica, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 First Printing-November 2003 This is book number TG04-1 1 5243 Do not reproduce. ISBN 1-886142-45-9 Printed in the United States of America PriMetrica, Inc. One Carlsbad Research Center • 2382 Faraday Avenue • Suite 140 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA Tel. 1 760 579 0218 • Fax 1 760 579 0273 • E-mail : info@primetrica.com www.primetrica.com 2 PriMetrica, Inc. This report was prepared by TeleGeography, the Washington D.C.-based research division of PriMetrica Inc. The TeleGeography 2004 research and production team included: Stephan Beckert .... ..... .. .. .. .. Director of Research J. Patrick Christian .. ...... ... ...... .. Senior Research Analyst Alan Mauldin ........ ....... .. ..... Senior Research Analyst Paul Melton .. .. ...... ... ...... Senior Research Analyst Abiola Ogunyemi .. .... .... .. .. ... .... Research Analyst Markus Krisetya ... .. .... .... .. Director of Systems & Design Michael Gorski .. ... .. ....... .... Systems Administrator Tim Stronge ... ...... ... ..... .. ... .. .. .. EVP of Research The following publications also are available from PriMetrica, Inc. : TeleGeography Research Global Internet Geography Database and Report Colocation Database and Report International Bandwidth 2003 Volume 1: Submarine Networks International Bandwidth 2003 Volume 2: Terrestrial Networks U.S. Internet Geography 2003 MANs 2003 The TeleGeography International Traffic Database (subscription service) The TeleGeography Bandwidth Pricing Database Service (subscription service) Global Communications Submarine Cable Map European Terrestrial Networks Map Global Internet Map Global Communications Traffic Map Other PriMetrica Research Global Comms Database Yearbook of African Telecommunications 2003 Yearbook of Asia-Pacific Telecommunications 2003 Yearbook of European Telecommunications 2003 Yearbook of Eastern European Telecommunications 2003 Yearbook of Latin American Telecommunications 2003 Yearbook of Middle Eastern Telecommunications 2004 Wireless Substitution Study For all inquiries, please contact: PriMetrica Inc. 2382 Faraday Avenue Suite 140 Carlsbad CA 92008 USA Tel. 1 760 579 0218 Fax 1 760 579 0273 E-mail: info@primetrica.com For more information please visit www.primetrica.com. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 200 3 Contents List of Figures .. .. ....... ........ .. .. ... ... ... .. ........ : .................. 4 List of Country Traffic Tables ... .. ...... .......... .. ... .......... . ... ......... .. 6 Executive Summary ..... ............. ..... ................. .... ... .......... 9 Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends ..... ... .... .. ...... :· .. .. .... .. ... 17 VoiP Routes & Traffic ... ... .. ....... .. .. ........ ..... .... ... .. .. .. 29 International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones .. ... ... ............. ........ ..... .43 International Services of U.S. RBOCs ...... ... .. ..... .. .. .. .... ... .. ..... 55 Carriers Competition and Market Shares ............ ........ .. .. .. .... ...... ... .. 63 Market Shares of International Carriers ... ... .. .. ........ ..... .. ........... 66 Top 40 International Carriers ....... .............. ...... ................ ...... 7 3 Traffic of Selected Multinational Carriers .. ....... .. .... .. ... .. .. .. ... .... 7 4 Market Shares of U.S. Carriers .... .. .... ..... ...... ... .... .. ........ 74 Price & Revenue Overview of International Price and Revenue Trends ....................................... 77 Elements of an International Call ............... ..... .... .. ......... .......... 89 International Carrier Call Costs from the U.S. ....... ... ... .... .... .. .. .. 90 International Carrier Call Costs to the U.S. .. .. ... ..... ......... ............. 91 U.S. International Settlement Rates ........ ........ .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... 92 Termination Rates by Country, 2001-2003 .. ... .. ... ... ............. .... .. ...... 94 Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000-2003 .. ................. .. .... ........ ... 95 Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call ... .. ................... ............ .......... 96 Retail Pricing Trends, 2000-2003 ........ .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... ....................... 99 Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review .......... ... .. ...... ...... .. ..... ....... ....... 103 International Traffic by Region .. .. ..... .............. ............. ........ .. ... 105 International Traffic by Country .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ................. ... 109 International Traffic by Route ......... ....... .... ................................ 112 Country Traffic Statistics International Traffic Tables .. ... .... ............... ............ .............. 113 (see page 6 for a list of countries) Methodology ... ........ ......... ........................... .. ... 229 Bandwidth Submarine Cable Systems .. ....... ... ... .. ..... .. .......... .............. 235 Terrestrial Networks ................................... .. ... ...... ...... 246 International Internet Backbones .... .. .. ........... ....................... ......... 253 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators & International Telephone Traffic .. ...... ............. 264 International Dialing Codes, by Country ... .. ... .... .. .. ........ ............. 268 World Dialing Codes Map ..... .......... ......... .. ............. .. ..... .. 270 International Dialing Codes, by Number ........... ... .. .. .. ... ... ........ 272 North American Area Codes, by Number .. ............ ...... .. ..... .............. 273 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction ...... ... .. ... ........ .. ....... 274 North American Area Codes Map ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ................. 276 A Primer on Bits ... .. ... .... .. .. ...... ....... .. .. .. ... .... ... .. 278 About PriMetrica, Inc ... ..... .. .. ............................. ... ......... 280 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 200 4 3 List of Figures Executive Summary Figure 1 Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002 ....... .. ....... ..... .. 11 Figure 2. International Traffic Volumes and Growth by Region ... ... ....... .... 12 Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982-2002 ............ 14 Traffic Analysis Overview of International Traffic Trends Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002 .... ........ .... ... 17 Figure 2. Regional Traffic Growth, 2001-2002 ...... 18 Figure 3. Traffic Growth in Competitive and Monopoly Markets, 1987-2002 ........ 19 Figure 4. Traffic Growth versus Price Declines, 1997-2002 ..... ......... ... .. ... 20 Figure 5. International Wholesale Traffic and Destinations ...................... 21 Figure 6. Traffic and Wholesale Revenues by Destination Region ................. 22 Figure 7. Call Delivery Methods .. .. ..... ..... 23 Figure 8. AT&T versus MCI ................... 25 Figure 9. Comparison of Wholesale and Settlement Rates, 2003 ...................... 26 VoiP Routes & Traffic Figure 1 International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2003 ............... 29 Figure 2. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Termination Summary, 2002 ......... 30 Figure 3. International Inbound VoiP Traffic Growth by Region, 2001-2002 .. ... ....... 31 Figure 4. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Latin America, 2001-2003 ................ 32 Figure 5. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Asia, 2001-2003 ..... ............... 33 Figure 6. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in East Europe, 2001-2003 ................. 33 Figure 7. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Africa, 2001-2003 .......... .. .......... 34 Figure 8. Inbound Growth to Top VoiP Destinations, 2002 .... ... .... .... 35 Figure 9. Incoming VoiP Traffic to Selected Countries, 2002 ........................... 36 Figure 10. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2001-2003 .. .. .. ............. 37 Figure 11 Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Origination VoiP Routes, 2001-2002 ................. 38 Figure 12. If You Cant Beat Them... ... ..... ... 39 Figure 13. Protocols ...... .. .. ... .. .. ....... 40 Figure 14. VoiPs Regulatory Status in the U.S ....... 41 4 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribership by Region 2002 ... 43 Figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999-2002 .. .. ... ...... ... 44 Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic 2000-2002 ................. 45 Figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic .. 46 Figure 5. Mobile Subscribers and International Traffic for Selected Countries, 2002 ...... 4 7 Figure 6. International Call Prices: Mobile versus Fixed, 2002-2003 ...... .. ... ...... 48 Figure 7. Interconnection Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Selected Countries, 2003 ..... 49 Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2002 ..... 50 Figure 9. Payment Structures for Mobile Calls .. 52 International Services of U.S. RBOCs Figure 1. RBOC Statistical Summary .. .......... 55 Figure 2. Section 271 Approvals ............... 56 Figure 3. RBOC Access Lines Approved for Long-Distance Service .......... .. ... 57 Figure 4. BeiiSouth Switch Line and Long-Distance Revenues .. .... .... .... ... ...... 58 Figure 5. SBC Switch Line and Long-Distance Revenues ........ ...... ...... .. 59 Carriers Figure 1 Traffic From Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002 .. ... .... .... 63 Figure 2. New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2002 ... 64 Figure 3. Market Shares of Incumbents and Key Rivals, 1998-2002 .. ...... .... .... 65 Market Shares of International Carriers ..... ... ..... 66 Top 40 International Carriers ................... 73 Traffic Base of Selected Multinational Carriers ........ 7 4 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers .. ... .... 74 Price & Revenue Overview of International Call Price and Revenue Trends Figure 1 Global Retail Revenues from International Calls, 1999-2003 ........ ......... 77 Figure 2. U.S. Carrier Revenues and Settlement Outpayments, 1980-2002 ........ ... 78 Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982-2002 .. .... .. ... 79 Figure 4. VSNL Settlement Rates and Revenue from Incoming Traffic ................ 80 Figure 5. Variance of International Wholesale Prices Over Time .. .................. 81 Figure 6. International Wholesale Prices to Europe: Mobile versus Fixed ................. 82 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 List of Figures (continued) Figure 7. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Service, 2001-2002 ..... .. .. .. 83 Figure 8. PSTN versus VoiP Revenue per Minute, 1999-2002 .. ..... .. .. .. 84 Figure 9. U.S. Call Revenues by Destination .. .. 85 Figure 10. U.S. Call Prices to Canada and the Philippines, 1997-2002 ...... ... 86 International Carrier Call Costs from the U.S. ..... 90 International Carrier Call Costs to the U.S .. .... .. .. 91 U.S. International Settlement Rates ... .. .. 92 Termination Rates by Country, 2001-2003 ... .. ... 94 Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000-2003 .. .. .. 95 Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call ....... .. ..... 96 Retail Pricing Trends, 2000-2003 ... ... .. .... .. 99 Traffic Summary Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth ... ........ .. .. .. 103 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue, and Subscriber Growth .... .. ..... .. 103 Figure 3. Intercontinental Traffic Flows, 1997 and 2002 .... ..... .. 104 International Traffic by Region Figure 1. Interregional Traffic Flows, 2002 ... .. 105 Figure 2. International Traffic by Origin 2002 ... 105 Figure 3. Traffic Growth by Region, 2000-2002 ... 105 Figure 4. European Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2002 .. ......... ... 106 Figure 5. Latin American Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2002 ... .. ..... ... ... 107 Figure 6. Asian Telecommunications Traffic Flows, 2002 ... ... ... ....... ....... 108 International Traffic by Country Figure 1. Top 25 Countries for Outgoing International PSTN Traffic 2002 .. .. ... .... .... 109 Figure 2. International Traffic Indicators, 2002 110 International Traffic by Route Figure 1. Top 50 International Routes, 2002 .. ... 112 Country Traffic Statistics (See page 6 for a list of countries) Bandwidth Figure 1. London-Paris STM-1 Annual Lease Price by Carrier, 2002-2003 .. .... ... ... .. 234 Submarine Cable Systems Figure 1 Submarine Cable Capacity and Trends by Route, 1999-2005 ... .... .. 235 Figure 2. Major Submarine Networks: Length, Cost and Capacity .. .. .. .. .. .. 236 Figure 3. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Pacific Coast) .. .. 238 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Figure 4. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Atlantic Coast) & Caribbean ... .. ... .... 239 Figure 5. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in South America & Caribbean .. .. 240 Figure 6. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Europe .... .. ..... ......... 241 Figure 7. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Africa and the Mediterranean .. .... 242 Figure 8. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in East Asia .... .... .... .. 243 Figure 9. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in South Asia .... ...... ... ... .. 244 Figure 10. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Oceania .. ....... ....... 245 Terrestrial Networks Figure 1 Overlay Map of Pan-European Terrestrial Networks .. .. ... .. ..... 246 Figure 2. Overlay Map of U.S. Terrestrial Networks .. .... .. .... ... .. 247 Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: Length, Connectivity, and MANs ............. 248 International Internet Backbones Figure 1 International Internet Backbone Growth by Region 2000-2003 ..... .. 253 Figure 2. Transoceanic Internet Traffic and Capacity, 2003-2006 ....... ......... 254 Figure 3. Median IP Transit Prices in London, 2000-2003 ........ .... 255 Figure 4. Interregional Internet Bandwidth 2003 ......... .. ..... .... .. 256 Figure 5. Map of Major Interregional Internet Routes, 2003 .. ... ....... .. ... .. 256 Figure 6. Major International Internet Routes in Europe, 2003 .. ... .. ... .. .. 257 Figure 7. Major International Internet Routes in Asia 2003 ....... .............. 258 Figure 8. Major International Internet Routes in Latin America 2003 ...... .... 259 Figure 9. Major International Internet Routes in Africa, 2003 ..... .. ............ 260 Figure 10. Major International Internet Routes in U.S. & Canada 2003 ........... .. 261 Reference National Telecommunications Indicators ....•... 264 International Dialing Codes, by Country ...... .. 268 World Dialing Codes Map .... ... ... .. 270 International Dialing Codes, by Number ........ 272 North American Area Codes, by Number .... .... 273 North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction .. ... 274 North American Area Codes Map .. ..... 276 A Primer on Bits .. ... .... ....... .. .... 278 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 5 List of Country Traffic Tables Albania ..... ... ...... ... 114 Angola ......•...•..•...•... 115 Anguilla ............. • .. .... 116 Antigua and Barbuda ...•...•... 117 Argentina ................. 118 Armenia .. ...•....... ...... 119 Australia ...... ... ... .... 120 Austria ....... ....•. .. • .... 121 Azerbaijan ....... .. .. •. ..... 122 Bahrain .. ...... ....... .... 123 Barbados ...........•...... 124 Belarus .... ... .... • .. 125 Belgium ................ .. 126 Belize .. .. .... .... .. 127 Bolivia .... .. .. ... ... ... 128 Botswana ................... 129 Brazil ... ..... ... 130 Bulgaria ............ .. ... .. 131 Burkina Faso .........•...... 132 Burundi ....... ... ..•... .. 133 Canada ............ ....... 134 Cayman Islands ..... .. .. 135 Chile .. ... .... ...•...... 136 China ..... .. .. ... ... .. .. 137 Costa Rica • 138 Cuba ....... ... ... .... 139 Cyprus .... .. ......... 140 Czech Republic .. .. .... 141 Denmark ..... ............. 142 Djibouti .. .. ...... 143 Dominican Republic .. .. ... 144 Egypt ...... ... ...... .. 145 Eritrea • 146 Estonia .. .... ..... ..... .. .. 147 Ethiopia ................ 148 Finland .. ... ...... .... 149 France .. .. ..•..... ... .... 150 Gabon ....... ... ...... 151 Gambia ... ..... •.. .. 152 6 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 Georgia .................... 153 Germany .. ................ 154 Ghana .. ........ ......... .. 155 Greece ... ... • .•.... 156 Grenada ..... ..... .. ... 157 Guatemala ...... ......... 158 Hong Kong .... ............. 159 Hungary ....... .. .•...... 160 India .... ........ ...•.... 161 Indonesia ..... .. ... ... ... 162 Iran ... ..... ....• ... 163 Ireland ...... .. .. ... ... 164 Israel .. •. •..... .. ..... 165 Italy ..... ... .. ..... •. .. ... 166 Jamaica .. ..•...•...•...... 167 Japan ................. ... 168 Jordan ... .•. ..... ... .... 169 Kazakhstan ... .. .. .. ... .. 170 Korea, Rep. .. .... .. ... 171 Kuwait .. .. .......... ..... 172 Kyrgyzstan .........•. ...... 17 3 Latvia ... ................. 174 Luxembourg ... ..•...•...•... 17 5 Macau .. ...... ...... .. .... 176 Macedonia ..........•...•... 177 Malaysia .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... 178 Maldives ........... •...•. .. 179 Malta ..................... 180 Mauritius ...... ............ 181 Mexico .................... 182 Moldova ..... ......... ... 183 Namibia .... ..... ......... 184 Netherlands ... ..... .... .. .. 185 New Zealand ...... .. ..... .. 186 Nicaragua ............... .. 187 Nigeria .................... 188 Norway .. ... .. .. ...... 189 Oman ........ ... .. ... ... 190 Pakistan .......... ..... ... 191 Palestinian Territory .. ........ 192 Paraguay ... ...... ...... 193 Peru .... ... .............. 194 Philippines ... .. .. .. • ... .... 195 Portugal ... .. .....•... ... 196 Qatar .. ...... ...... .. ... 197 Russia ...... .. .......•... 198 Saint Kitts and Nevis ..... ..... 199 Saint Lucia .............•.... 200 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ........ .... .. 201 Saudi Arabia .. ....... ..... 202 Serbia and Montenegro .... .... 203 Singapore .... ..... ... .. 204 Slovak Republic ...... .. ... 205 South Africa ...... .. .. ... 206 Spain .. .... ... ..... ...... 207 Swaziland ... .. ............. 208 Sweden .......•............ 209 Switzerland .. ... .. ..... .. .. 210 Syria .... .....•... .. .. .... 211 Taiwan ...... ... ... ..... .. 212 Tajikistan ...•.......•...... 213 Tanzania .. ... ... ... ..... 214 Thailand ................... 215 Togo .. ... .. ... ....... 216 Trinidad and Tobago ... ... ... 217 Turkey ..................... 218 Turkmenistan ......... .. ..... 219 Ukraine ...... .. ....... .. 220 United Arab Emirates ... ..... 221 United Kingdom-Outgoing ..•... 222 United Kingdom-Incoming ... .. 223 United States-Outgoing ...•. .. 224 United States-Incoming ..... ... 225 Uzbekistan ... .... .......... 226 Yemen .. .. .. .. 227 Zambia .. .... .. ...... 228 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Acknowledgements We wish to thank the numerous carriers, government departments, regula­ tors, and international organizations from around the world who responded to our requests for information. This report would not exist without the help of the dedicated people at these organizations who took the time to ensure that the data reported here are as current and accurate as possible. We 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: Linda Blake, Cathy Hsu, Jason Kowal, Mike Lemburg, Esperanza Magpantay, Bill Marmon, Michael Minges, Tim Riordan, Nathalie Rollet, and Heather Tinsley. The Editors © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 · TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 7 8 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 200 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. -Steins Law Plummeting prices and surging traffic volumes were the hallmarks of the late 1990s international long-distance market. Market liberalization and competition caused prices to tumble, encouraging individuals to place far more calls than ever. For several consecutive years, carriers enjoyed double-digit annual volume growth, and revenues soared. As the economist Herbert Stein noted, however, markets must return to equi­ librium eventually. The decade-long market expansion finally came to an end in 2000. Annual call volume growth crested at 25 percent, as did carrier revenues, which peaked at $72 billion. Since its zenith in 2000, the international carrier market has turned decidedly sour. Despite four years of aggressive price cuts by carriers, call minute growth rates have slowed, sending revenues spiraling downward. With some currently questioning whether the international voice sector is altogether doomed, now may be the time to recall Steins Law. Call volume growth stabilized in 2002, and the relentless price decreases showed signs of possibly slowing. Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002 180 160 140 c: 120 c: e 1oo .= 80 a.. 0 -g 60 ., z I- 40 20 • VoiP PSTN Growth rate Source: TeleGeography research I 30% 25% 20% e (!) u :£: 15% :;: 0 -c 10% a.. 5% © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 Figure 2. International Traffic Volumes and Growth by Region Regional Share of Global Traffic Latin America & Carribean 3.9% I " !!! :::> 0 a: -o c:: :::> 0 £ :::> 0 c:: 0 Q) " " ..> E ..> iE " c: Q) ..> Q; a... 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% Notes: Global traffic was 155.2 billion minutes in 2002. Data do not include VoiP traffic. Source: TeleGeography research Traffic Annual Traffic Growth by Region us & Europe Africa Asia & Latin Canada Oceania America © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 International switched traffic increased just over six percent in 2002 to 155.2 billion minutes (see Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002). Growth was par­ ticularly slow in Europe and North America, the two regions where international carrier markets liberalized earliest and matured most quickly. Europe and North America gen­ erate 7 5 percent of the worlds international traffic and, thus, drive global trends (see Figure 2. International Traffic Volumes and Growth by Region). Consequently, sluggish growth in these markets led to the single-digit annual increase in worldwide switched traffic. VoiP Examining only switched traffic volumes provides a partial picture of the international voice sector. Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoiP) traffic surged 80 percent in 2002 to 18.7 billion minutes, accounting for almost 11 percent of international traffic. The growth in VoiP traffic-and its substitution for switched calls-has contributed consid­ erably to anemic switched traffic growth. VoiP appears to have had a particularly notable impact in Latin America, where switched traffic volumes decreased in 2002. Including traffic transmitted via Voice-over-Internet Protocol, aggregate international minutes growth reached approximately 11.3 percent, slightly higher than in 2001. Despite its recent growth, VoiP is still primarily used to bypass high settlement rates in developing countries. However, industry acceptance of VoiP is increasing. Incumbent carriers in a growing number of developing countries now accept and terminate incom­ ing VoiP traffic. The VoiP sector received a significant vote of confidence in November 2003, when Teleglobe, the former monopoly incumbent of Canada, announced that it was acquiring ITXC, the largest VoiP wholesale carrier: ., TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mobiles Mobile-originated international traffic surged upward by approximately 19 percent in 2002 to 27.9 billion minutes. As a result, calls from mobile phones accounted for 17.4 percent of the worlds international traffic. Few mobile carriers operate their own inter­ national links, making them a crucial contributor to wholesale carriers revenues froni outgoing international calls. However, persistently high mobile termination costs make mobile growth a mixed blessing. In Europe, for example, mobile-terminated calls accounted for 32 percent of incoming international traffic but over 70 percent of inter~ national carriers estimated termination costs. These cost differentials have prompted regulatory investigations from both European and U.S. authorities. RBOC Entry into Long-Distance Regulatory shackles have historically prevented the four U.S. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC) from competing effectively in the long-distance market. While the four former Bell companies accounted for 87 percent of local access lines in the U.S., TeleGeography estimates that they carried only one percent of U.S. outgoing interna­ tional traffic in 2002. Over the course of 2002 and 2003, authorities eliminated most of these regulatory constraints. The Bells have launched a ferocious assault on both the domestic and international long-distance market. The RBOCs initial success has been resounding. Owests long-distance subscriber base more than doubled in the second quarter of 2003, and BeiiSouths long-distance revenues surged 70 percent between the third quarters of 2002 and 2003. As of late 2003, however, the Bells impact in the inter­ national long-distance market has been mixed. While their retail traffic volume is grow­ ing dramatically, some RBOCs are relying almost completely on wholesale carriers to deliver their international traffic. Consequently, the RBOCs may prove to be fierce rivals of established retail long-distance carriers, but major customers of wholesale international carriers. Revenues During the boom years of the late 1990s, optimists predicted that traffic growth would more than offset falling prices. Unfortunately, the opposite turned out to be true. Price declines have outpaced traffic growth in the past two years, causing retail revenues from international traffic to decline from $72 billion in 2000 to $53 billion in 2002. Between 1999 and year-end 2003, TeleGeography estimates that average price decreases of 17.2 percent per year will have undermined annual call volume increases of 11.9 percent, with net revenue growth spiraling downward by an annual global aver­ age of 7.3 percent. Carriers suffering in this multi-year market adjustment may be consoled by a few hope­ ful signs. First, the pace of retail rate decreases appears to have slackened. Prices for many of the worlds highest-volume routes (e.g., U.S.-to-Canada) have already reached their floor and will likely stabilize or, at worst, drift slowly downward. Second, despite the surge of international VoiP traffic, cheap VoiP calls have not undermined interna­ tional call revenues as much as feared. Evidence suggests that the substitution of inex­ pensive VoiP calls for higher-priced switched calls dragged down international service revenue by just two cents per minute in 2002, to 32 cents. Finally, plunging settlement outpayments have cushioned the decline in gross revenues. In fact, U.S. international © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 4 Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982-2002 ."l ::> -~ Q; Cl. C1) ::> c C1) C1) a: $1.60 Revenue per Minute $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 Margin (Net of Settlement Outpayments) $0.40 $0.20 60% 50% E " Cl. 40% Jl -c C1) E 30% -E C1) (/) 0 20% c ·a, 10% $0.00 0% 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Notes: Revenue per Minute indicates average revenue per minute on outgoing international calls from the U.S. Calls to Canada and Mexico are excluded. Source: FCC carrier filings and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 carriers enjoyed the highest average margins (revenues net of settlement outpayments) in 20 years (see Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982- 2002). Measuring Change For beleaguered international carriers, 2002 offered some encouraging signals. Though call volume growth remained anemic, the rate of price decreases gave some indication of abating. However, further turbulence is projected. Technologically, VoiP is emerging as a legitimate substitute for the switched network. Consumer migration from fixed­ line phones to mobile handsets have created a new set of problems and possibilities for international carriers. Regulatory developments-VoiP, mobile termination, and the emergence of RBOCs as a force in the ILD market-continue to shape the international carrier market. This years edition of Te/eCeography-the twelfth of our annual series-offers a com­ prehensive picture of an industry in flux. The reports call volume data set of over 3,000 international routes in 116 countries remains the principal tool for gauging change. In addition, TeleCeography 2004 presents detailed analysis on traffic, prices, revenues, and technology trends for the international long-distance sector. To place this analysis in context of the industry at large, the report also incorporates over 30 pages of charts and tables from TeleGeographys original research on long-haul terres­ trial networks, undersea cables, and international Internet backbones. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 6 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Overview of International Traffic Trends International carriers experienced a second consecutive year of sub-par international traffic growth, as volumes of switched traffic grew 6.2 percent from 146.1 billion to 155.2 billion minutes. While respectable by the standards of most industries, thi~ growth pales in comparison to annual growth rates of 15 percent or more that were regularly achieved through the late 1990s and 2000. If voice-over-IP traffic (VoiP) were included, aggregate growth would come to approximately 11.3 percent, slightly below growth in 2001 [see Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002). This article will review the past year s worldwide telecom traffic growth patterns and exam­ ine the reasons for the recent slowdown in growth rates. Regional Trends Aggregate traffic growth has slowed in all regions of the world [see Figure 2. Regional Traffic Growth, 2001-2002) over the past two years, but the reasons for the decelera­ tion varied. Latin America. The most pronounced drop occurred in Latin America, where outbound volumes of switched traffic actually declined by 1 percent after growing 8 percent in 2001. Although economic turmoil in many Latin American countries certainly played a Figure 1. Call Volumes and Growth Rates, 1984-2002 180 160 -;;; 140 c: 0120 I) c: ;s 100 u :E " t!= 80 a.. 0 -g 60 " z ti; a.. 40 20 • VoiP • PSTN -Growth rate 30% 25% 20%1 " u :E " 15% 0 "0 c: " z 10% ti; a.. 5% 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEG EO G RAP HY 2004 1 7 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 18 Figure 2. Regional Traffic Growth, 2001-2002 20% 15% " 5% c:: l: 0% Africa -5% Asia & Pacific Europe • 2001 • 2002 Latin America & U.S. & Canada Caribbean Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 role in the slowdown, VoiP traffic also appears to have noticeably impacted switched call volumes from Latin America. While tracking the origin of wholesale VoiP is diffi­ cult, several Latin American countries are among the largest originating countries for many VolP retailers contributing traffic data to TeleGeography. Europe. Although Europe had been regarded by many as a relatively mature market for ILD services, growth was tremendous in the late 1990s, driven by deep price cuts and the mass adoption of mobile phones. Both these growth engines have slowed in the past two years, and European traffic growth declined to just under 7 percent in 2002, from 14 percent percent in 2001. Intra-European traffic growth slowed to 3 per­ cent, and traffic to the U.S. and Canada grew by 8 percent. The fastest-growing des­ tinations for European traffic were Northern Africa and the Middle East, which grew 10 and 12 percent, respectively. Asia. Growth rates in Asia, although among the highest in the world, were poor by recent standards. While growth in Australia and Japan, two of the first countries to lib­ eralize their ILD markets, slowed to under three percent in 2002, more recently liber­ alized countries, such as Taiwan, helped maintain aggregate growth in Asia. U.S. and Canada. U.S. traffic increased by approximately four percent, comparable to growth in the previous year. However, U.S. volumes to both Canada and Western Europe, two of the largest destinations for U.S. international traffic, declined in 2002. Traffic to Latin America and Asia, grew by 13 and 17 percent, respectively. The slow­ down in U.S. traffic growth is likely a reflection of several factors. First, and most importantly, U.S. traffic volumes include several billion minutes of reoriginated traffic. While small relative to the total base of U.S. traffic, these volumes may be large enough to ~ave a noticeable impact on individual routes. Second, growing traffic volumes have TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 3. Traffic Growth in Competitive and Monopoly Markets, 1987-2002 30%. • Competitive Markets • Monopoly Markets 25% .t= 20% 0 c?; a; 15% " c;; ::::l c: c: 10% l: 5% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Note: Data reflect aggregate PSTN and VoiP traffic volumes. Source: TeleGeography research migrated from the PSTN to VoiP carriers. Finally, since international traffic flows reflect macroeconomic trends, the economic slowdown of 2001 and 2002 almost certainly had an impact on traffic volumes Africa. Growth from Africa, which generated two percent of the worlds outbound international traffic, remained relatively steady. Overall trends in African traffic were driven by South Africa Northern African countries (Morocco, Algeria Tunisia and Egypt). and Nigeria, which collectively account for over 60 percent of Africas traffic. While growth in most countries was relatively constant, Nigerian traffic surged over 40 percent, buoyed by the recent liberalization of Nigeria s mobile phone market. Price Elasticity The price wars of the past five years have driven down retail prices for international calls by more than 70 percent in many competitive markets, unleashing pent-up demand for international long-distance services (see Figure 3. Traffic Growth in Competitive and Monopoly Markets, 1987-2002). In microeconomic terms, these price cuts "shifted the supply curve, allowing callers to purchase more long-distance services for a given amount of money. While this resulted in torrid short-term traffic growth, the long-distance market would eventually have to return to equilibrium. Five years after the main wave of market liberalization, an uneasy market equilibrium © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 20 Figure 4. Traffic Growth versus Price Declines, 1997-2002 200% 0% 1997 2000 2001 2002 -200% -400% Q) " c: " -600% ..c: u -c: Q) u -800% Q; c... -1000% Cumulative Volume Change -1200% -Cumulative Price Change -1400% Note: Price trends reflect Deutsche Telekoms retail price for calls from Germany to the U.S. in constant U.S. dollars. Volume reflects total voice traffic from Germany to the U.S. In 1997, Deutsche Telekom charged $2.03 for a 3-minute call from Germany to the U.S; in 2002, such a call cost $0.16. In 1997, Germany generated 319 million minutes of traffic to the U.S.; by 2002, traffic was 695 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 appears to have set in. Retail prices and carrier market shares have become more sta­ ble, albeit at at painfully low levels, and traffic growth has returned closer to historical trends. Interestingly, traffic growth in monopoly markets exceeded growth in competitive mar­ kets in 2002. However, traffic growth in competitive markets has far exceeded growth in monopoly markets over the past 6 years-17 percent, compared with 12 percent in monopoly markets. The experience of recent years has shown that, while demand for long-distance serv­ ices is price-elastic, demand is less than unitary. Price reductions outpaced traffic growth, causing carriers revenues to plummet. While price erosion has slowed in the past two years, so too has volume growth-thus carriers revenues have remained under intense pressure [see Figure 4. Traffic Growth versus Price Declines, 1997- 2002). The furious retail price competition has affected carriers worldwide-not just in the countries where the most traffic is originated. Although retail price declines are more immediately apparent, retail prices could not have fallen so far if termination and set­ tiE~ment rates in the destination countries had not declined as well [see "Overview of International Call Price and Revenue Trends" on pages 79 to 90). TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Figure 5. International Wholesale Traffic and Destinations Total International Total International • Terminating Traffic Wholesale Traffic Terminating Regional Totals Fixed Mobile Total Fixed Mobile Total Northern Africa 1.9 0.6 2.5 0.8 0.3 1.2 Sub-Saharan Africa 2.1 0.9 2.9 1.1 0.4 1.5 Central Asia & Caucasus 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 East Asia 15.5 6.7 22.2 6.4 2.5 8.9 Middle East 4.5 2.2 6.6 1.9 0.9 2.8 Oceania 3.6 1.0 4.6 1.6 0.4 2.0 South Asia 4.3 0.6 4.9 1.6 0.2 1.9 Eastern Europe 5.9 2.1 8.0 3.2 1.1 4.3 Western Europe 41.6 19.9 61 .5 8.0 9.0 17.0 Caribbean & Atlantic 2.4 0.9 3.3 1.0 0.4 1.4 Central America 5.8 2.1 8.0 1.2 0.4 1.6 South America 4.9 1.1 6.0 2.9 0.7 3.6 U.S. & Canada 22.5 1.3 23.8 6.5 0.4 6.9 World 115.5 39.4 154.9 36.5 16.8 53.4 Source: TeleGeography research Prior to market deregulation traffic growth was determined primarily by macroeco­ nomic factors, including economic growth and growth in trade, tourism, and immigra­ tion. Now that the one-off surge from market liberalization has passed, these factors will once again, drive growth patterns. International Wholesale Trends Wholesale traffic-calls carried to their final destinations via third-party carriers­ accounted for approximately 34 percent of total international PSTN volumes in 2002 (see Figure 5. International Wholesale Traffic and Destinations) TeleGeography sam­ pled several wholesale carriers to determine both the aggregate amount of interna­ tional wholesale traffic and the largest wholesale destinations. This research revealed that some destinations received a disproportionately large amount of wholesale traffic. In general, international carriers purchase the services of wholesale carriers when sending traffic to countries where traditional mechanisms for terminating traffic (such as the settlement rate regime) are expensive. Wholesale traffic is highest to destina­ tions where wholesale carriers have secured arrangements for terminating traffic at costs below the official interconnection rate. For example, the official U.S. carrier set­ tlement rate with Cuba was $0.60 per minute in September 2003 while the average wholesale rate to Cuba at the Arbinet minutes exchange was only $0.55 per minute. TeleGeography s research indicates that wholesale carriers handle 80 percent of all traffic to Cuba. TeleGeography found that the 53 billion minutes of calls handled by international wholesale carriers accounted for roughly $5.4 billion in revenues. Wholesale carrier revenues estimates reflect the estimated wholesale traffic to each country multiplied by the average observed wholesale price to that country. The wholesale prices used in the analysis were taken from several U.S. wholesale carriers and from average whole­ sale prices on Arbinets minutes exchange. These prices are at the low end of the mar­ ket; as a result, TeleGeographys revenue estimates should be regarded as TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Total Wholesale Revenues Fixed Mobile Total $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.4 $0.3 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $0.5 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3 $0.0 $0.4 $0.2 $0.2 $0.4 $0.1 $1 .6 $1.7 $0.3 $0.1 $0.3 $0.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.4 $0.0 $0.4 $2.6 $2.8 $5.4 © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 21 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 22 Figure 6. Traffic and Wholesale Revenues by Destination Region Share of Total International Terminating Traffic Share of International Wholesale Revenues L. America & Caribbean 11% Africa 3% Europe Mobiles 14% L. America & Caribbean 13% Europe Mobiles 32% Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 conservative. Furthermore. this methodology only counts wholesale revenue once per call. In reality, an international call often traverses through several wholesale carriers networks, with each carrier booking revenue on the call. Thus, although net revenues totaled approximately $5.4 billion, gross revenues for the international wholesale car­ rier industry likely exceeded $10 billion in 2002 (see "Overview of International Call Price and Revenue Trends" on pages 79 to 90). TeleGeographys research indicates that calls to mobile phones represent a dispropor­ tionately large share of wholesale carrier revenue. Only 14 percent of global PSTN traf­ fic terminated on European mobiles in 2002, yet these calls accounted for 19 percent of international wholesale carrier traffic and, due to the high call costs, 32 percent of wholesale carrier revenues (see Figure 6. Traffic and Wholesale Revenues by Destination Region) Routing and Settlement Arrangements Until a few years ago, sending and terminating calls abroad was simple but expensive. International carriers (typically, incumbent monopolies) shared the cost and revenue for cross-border calls in accordance with the decades-old accounting rate regime. To send a call abroad, a carrier would route the signal onto its own international "half cir­ cuit ," then transfer the call onto the matching network of its foreign counterpart for ter­ mination. For this service, the originating carrier would pay the foreign telco a hefty settlement fee, usually equal to one-half the accounting rate negotiated by the two car­ riers. The accounting rate regime worked well enough to withstand decades of change. As long as carriers were predominately national monopolies and traffic on, routes remained roughly in balance, there was little reason to question the economics of the accounting rate regime. But times have changed: in 2002, over 90 percent of the worlds traffic TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 7. Call Delivery Methods Standard Public Switched Call 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. 2. Call is sent over the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) by originating carrier, which pays set­ tlement charge to termi­ nating carrier in destination country. 3. Call is delivered to its final destination by ter­ minating carrier. International Simple Resale (ISR) 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. 2. Call is routed over inter­ national private line to switch in destination country but outside net­ work incumbent telco (e .g., to closed user group or mobile opera­ tor). Source: TeleGeography research © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 3. Call is re-rerouted to incumbent telcos net­ work and completed as a local call on PSTN. No international settle­ ments are paid by the originating carrier. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Refile 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. 2. Originating carrier sends call to hub country via PSTN or over interna­ tional private line. 3. Refile carrier re-origi­ nates call over PSTN. 4. Call is delivered to final destination via refile car­ rier, which pays settle­ ment charge to terminating carrier. VoiP 1. Customer dials interna­ tional number. Call is routed over PSTN to gateway computer. 2. Call is converted from analog voice to Internet Protocol (IP) format and sent over the Internet to a gateway in terminating country. 3. Call is converted back to analog format. 4. Call is completed as a local call on PSTN. No international settle­ ments are pa id by the originating carrier. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 23 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS was originated in countries with international services competition, and traffic imbal­ ances on some large routes, such as the U.S. to Mexico, can amount to hundreds of millions of minutes annually. As competition began to intensify, many carriers-particularly those sending more traf­ fic than received-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 deregulation of telecom markets to offer carriers a host of ways to send and terminate their international traffic. Not all are entirely legal-but almost all are cheaper than the accounting rate regime. Direct Interconnection I International Simple Resale The most widely used alternative to the settlement rate system is "International Simple Resale" [ISR). This bureaucratic name is something of a misnomer, in that ISR is not really voice resale. ISR involves the provision of switched voice services over leased or owned private lines interconnected directly to the public switched network [PSTN) in the origin and destination countries. Sometimes called "direct interconnection," this alternative allows international carriers to bypass the international gateway operator and to negotiate a termination rate directly with the local exchange carrier in the des­ tination country. Most competitive telecom markets, including the European Union, the U.S., Canada, and Japan, now allow direct interconnection. The advantage of direct interconnection is that local exchange carriers termination rates are typically far lower than the official international settlement rate. Despite the apparent cost advantage of ISR, many carriers-particularly incumbents-still send a substantial proportion of their international traffic via the settlement rate regime. An informal survey of international carriers conducted by TeleGeography indicated that even in some highly competitive markets in Europe, many incumbent carriers still send most of their traffic via international settlements. The seemingly outdated settlement system may hold some advantages for incumbent carriers. Incumbent carriers control most of the domestic-fixed line networks in their home countries and thus terminate the lions share of inbound international traffic. Since settlement payments are symmetric, the effective termination rate paid by the sending carrier can be zero if traffic on a bilateral route is in balance. As markets have liberalized, most incumbent carriers have continued negotiating volume-based bilateral agreements but at lower, market-based rates. Many of these agreements are still denominated in SDR [Special Drawing Rights), a currency basket used for international settlements that helps reduce the impact of exchange-rate fluctuations. By contrast, new market entrants, which tend to send far more traffic than they termi­ nate on their own networks, generally find it advantageous to send as much traffic as possible via direct interconnection. For carriers sending traffic between countries where direct network interconnection is permitted, the term "bypass" has become a misnomer: The term suggests that there is an obstacle that must be overcome when, in fact, this is no longer the case. Instead, the settlement rate system has simply evolved into one of a number of options a carrier may choose for terminating interna­ tional traffic. 24 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Figure 8. AT&T versus MCI Given the brutally c~mpetitive nature of the long­ distance market, "bypass" is also common in domestic telecom markets. Attempts to avoid high domestic termination rates may affect inter­ national traffic flows, as well. In the late 1990s, for example. carriers seeking to avoid high mobile termination fees would "trombone" domestic calls bound for mobiles phones via another country to take advantage of international call termination rates below the cost of mobile termination costs. An analogous practice came to light in the U.S. in 2003. AT&T has filed a lawsuit against MCI, alleg­ ing that MCI illegally routed domestic U.S. long­ distance calls bound for high-cost rural destinations in the U.S. via Canada. The FCC regulates termination rates charged by RBOCs, which are consequently among the low­ est in the world. However, such restrictions do not apply to independent rural telecom compa­ nies, which account for roughly 6 percent of U.S. access lines. The average termination rate ("access charge") in these rural districts in 2002 was roughly 3.5 times higher than the prevailing rate in RBOC service areas-about 2.28 cents per minute, on average, compared with 0.64 cents per minute. MCI routed a large volume of traffic bound for U.S. rural markets via Onvoy, a small regional car­ rier based in Minnesota. Onvoy routed the calls Source: TeleGeography research Illicit Bypass to Manitoba Telecom Services in Canada. Manitoba Telecom then sent the call to BCE, which terminates its U.S.-bound traffic via AT&T. While the details of BCEs agreement with AT&T are not public, AT&Ts contract with BCE was apparently based on a fixed settlement rate that did not differentiate between rural and urban mar­ kets. Most crucially, the settlement rate negoti­ ated by AT&T and BCE seems to be significantly less than the access charges levied by NECA car­ riers. While the routing arrangements are unusu­ ally complex, the underlying tactic was not: MCI and Onvoy were taking advantage of imbalances in termination rates. What is surprising about the dispute is the volume of traffic AT&T claims was routed via Canada. AT&T charges that between July 22,2002, and July 23, 2003, 166 million minutes, 25 percent of AT&Ts terminated traffic from Canada, were orig­ inated in the U.S. Of this traffic, approximately BB percent was destined for high-cost rural carriers. While AT&T has not yet established how much incoming traffic was originated by MCI cus­ tomers, the volume was clearly significant-and MCI does not dispute this point. MCI, for its part, argues that the company was simply using least­ cost-routing procedures to identify the lowest­ cost provider. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 The issue of bypass traffic is far more significant in countries where direct interconnec­ tion with the domestic network is not permitted. While illicit bypass is difficult to measure, the volume is clearly large. In its annual report, Telmex estimates lost rev­ enues of approximately $105 million due to settlement rate bypass in 2002, equivalent to over 12 percent of Telmexs international long-distance revenues. Given its illicit nature, bypass traffic is difficult to measure, but it can be easily identi­ fied. A comparison of wholesale prices charged by carriers on minutes exchanges with official settlement rates suggests that many carriers have found ways to beat the sys­ tem. Figure 9 compares wholesale country rates available from the Arbinet minutes exchange in November 2002 with the prevailing U.S. settlement rates. Each dot in the chart compares the settlement rate with the wholesale price charged for carrying a minute of traffic to that country. To cite one extreme example, one wholesaler opera- TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 25 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Figure 9. Comparison of Wholesale and Settlement Rates, 2003 2l " a: -c: Q) E Q) E Q) Cl) $0.40 Wholesale Lower than Settlement $0.30 oAndorra $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 $0.00 0 $0.10 $0.20 Ethiopia 0 o New Caledonia Settlement Lower than Wholesale $0.30 $0.40 Wholesale Rate Note: Wholesale rates reflect average prices of traffic routed via Arbinets minutes exchange on September 7, 2003. Settlement rates reflect U.S. carrier settlement rates in force during September 2003. Source: AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange, FCC, and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 tor delivered traffic from New York to Andorra for $0.02 per minute in November 2003, 95 percent less than the prevailing settlement rate of $0.29 per minute. Since ISR is not permitted in Andorra, this traffic is certainly bypassing the settlement rate illicitly. Voice over IP The volume of traffic carried over IP links in 2002 was impressive: 18.7 billion min­ utes, equivalent to more than 10.8 percent of the world s international ·traffic. While the traffic volumes suggest that VoiP has become a mainstream technology, the pri­ mary destinations of VoiP traffic indicate that it is, as yet primarily used for settlement rate arbitrage. VoiP has clearly emerged as the most successful means of bypassing the settlement rate regime to date. However; its very success as an arbitrage tool may be helping VoiP move into the mainstream. Faced with the rapid erosion of incoming termination traffic, a growing number of incumbent carriers in developing countries have reached agreements with leading VoiP carriers to terminate their traffic. Refile Refile represents a third form of alternatively routed traffic. Instead of avoiding accounting rates altogether, carriers employing refile bend the rules of the international settlement regime to their advantage. Refile occurs when a carrier re-routes an out­ going international call through a third country, frequently in order to take advantage of the intermediate country s lower settlement rate with the final destination. Although the legal status of refile is more debatable than that of ma(ly other forms of bypass, the practice is certainly illicit. With the intent of disguising the true origin of traffic the refile carrier in the intermediate country strips the numbering code, which 26 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 identifies the originating country and replaces it with its own country code. This ruse makes economic sense in cases where settlement rate disparity exists between origi­ nating countries. Based on information gathered in its annual survey of international carriers, TeleGeography estimates that refile traffic accounts for about 15 to 20 percent of world traffic volumes. Much of this refile traffic is sent between countries where ISR is legal, and simply represents an alternate means of delivering traffic. "Multinational" carri~ ers, telecom companies that operate switches in multiple markets, are more likely to send refile traffic than national carriers. Approximately 30 percent of the traffic car­ ried by multinational operators surveyed by TeleGeography is refile traffic, compared with approximately 10 to 15 percent for carriers with a more strictly "national" orien­ tation. Who is sending all of this bypass traffic? Based on survey responses provided to TeleGeography, carriers in monopoly markets and developing countries are every bit as likely to trick the system as carriers battling for their existence in hotly contested mar­ kets. The destinations, volumes, and technologies employed may vary, but the ulti­ mate goal is always the same: to maximize net revenues by minimizing net outpayments to other carriers. Given the pervasiveness of bypass traffic, the practice will survive as long as there are cost structures to be circumvented. Looking Forward Although the pace of revenue declines is slowing, the outlook for the international voice market remains cloudy. The following sections examine three key issues that are reshaping the industry: the continued rapid growth and evolution of voice-over-IP traf­ fic and carriers, the migration of voice traffic from fixed to mobile networks, and the U.S. Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) entry into the long-distance market. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 27 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 28 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 200 3 VoiP Routes & Traffic While PSTN traffic growth has been sliding the past two years, VoiP has continued to surge, growing over 80 percent to 18.7 billion minutes of international voice traffic in 2002. Latin America. Asia and Eastern Europe-with deregulating markets, emerging competition, and relatively high settlement rates-remain the principal destinations foi international VolP traffic, underscoring the continued role of settlement rate arbitrage as the primary growth driver. While the destinations for VoiP traffic may not have reg­ istered much change over the past year, the field of players certainly has. Perhaps the most surprising dynamic to emerge during the past year has been increased incumbent participation in the VolP market. Established traditional switched carriers are now beginning to compete directly with-and, in one case. acquire-their VoiP wholesale counterparts. This article surveys the findings of TeleGeographys fourth annual international VoiP traffic survey, concluded in October 2003. The analysis begins at the global level, pre­ senting evidence of a possible slowdown in 2003. More detailed discussion of regional growth trends and traffic patterns follows. The article concludes by reviewing the mar­ ket structure of the VoiP industry and examining incumbent carriers recent moves into the arena. both by by outsourcing traffic and transporting significant volumes on their own networks. Figure 1.1nternational VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2003 250,000 International VoiP Traffic 24,005.5 m 200,000 18,760.4 m 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 -;;; c: 150,000 ::::> c: " c: 100,000 .g 50,000 0 2003 " E E c: Notes: Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on public switched telephone net­ works; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. PSTN traffic includes circuit-switched voice and fax traffic carried on traditional international facilities as well as international simple resale {ISR) facilities. Figures for 2003 are estimated. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 29 VOIP 30 Figure 2. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Termination Summary, 2002 U.S. & Canada 10% VoiP Middle East Africa 3% 4% Asia 29% PSTN Africa Middle East 3% 4% Notes: Charts represent the percentage of total inbound VoiP and inbound PSTN traffic by region. Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross­ border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on public switched telephone networks; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. PSTN traffic includes circuit-switched voice and fax traffic carried on traditional international facilities as well as international simple resale (ISR) facilities. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Traffic Trends The goal of our survey was twofold: first, to measure how much VoiP traffic transits international networks; and second, to establish where it is going. The data presented here include international phone calls that transit public or private IP networks at some point but ultimately terminate on traditional fixed or mobile networks. PC-to-PC com­ munications and private corporate network traffic are excluded because neither are directly comparable to PSTN traffic flows. Also, because our survey is based on the reports of most-but not all-companies carrying VoiP traffic some routes may be under-reported. Finally, the true point of origin for most wholesale VoiP traffic is diffi­ cult to ascertain Many carriers track only where the traffic enters their network, usu­ ally at a centrally-located hub in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Singapore, or Hong Kong. Overall our findings prove an obvious point-that VoiP is a new means to an old end. Because U.S.-based companies have had a head start in setting up their businesses, most global VoiP traffic currently originates in the U.S. although the U.K., Germany, and China are growing as alternative origination hubs. Furthermore, because the Internet remains U.S.-centric, U.S.-based VoiP carriers have access to the most inter­ national IP bandwidth at the lowest prices. As the primary hub for intercontinental Internet traffic, the U.S. may retain its position as a hub for VoiP traffic even as the ranks of VoiP carriers proliferate into Western Europe and Asia TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Global VoiP Traffic Between 1997 and 2002, the combined traffic of companies routing international calls over IP networks increased from less than 10 million to more than 18.7 billion minutes. VoiP traffic grew by almost 85 percent in 2002, compared with just under 7 4 percent in 2001. By comp·arison, switched traffic increased by just over 6.2 percent in 2002. In total, VoiP and PSTN traffic grew 11.3 percent in 2002, to 173.9 billion minutes­ slow, by historical standards, but not unprecedented. Based on TeleGeographys half-year survey results, international VoiP traffic may reach 24 billion minutes in 2003, constituting a little more than 12 percent of the worlds forecasted international traffic (see Figure 1. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Summary, 1997-2003). However, the survey results also suggest that VoiP growth has slowed to an annualized rate of approximately 30 percent in 2003. Regions In terms of total traffic, Latin America Asia, and Eastern Europe continued to be the primary VoiP destinations in 2002, due to arbitrage opportunities, rapidly developing IP infrastructure, and opening markets (see Figure 2. International VoiP and PSTN Traffic Termination Summary, 2002) Latin America. Latin America was the primary destination accounting for about one­ third of all inbound international VoiP traffic-over five billion minutes. Traffic to both Peru and Venezuela grew by over 160 percent, making them the fastest-growing desti­ nations in Latin America (see Figure 4. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Latin America 2001-2003) Figure 3. International Inbound VoiP Traffic Growth by Region, 2001-2002 250% 200% ."! " 150% a: ..c::: e 100% (!) 50% 0% Africa Latin America Asia Europe Middle East Notes: Voice-over-IP (VolPI traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on pub­ lic switched telephone networks; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 31 VOIP 32 Brazil opened its market to VoiP competition in 2002; however, industry participants report that regulatory obstacles remain significant. Consequently, traffic growth to Brazil was 60 percent in 2002-respectable by most standards, but sluggish by com­ parison to other newly liberalized markets, such as India. Mexico remained the largest recipient of VoiP traffic, accounting for over 50 percent of all incoming voice traffic to Latin America. Asia. Traffic to Asia grew 95 percent in 2002, compared with 85 percent growth in 2001. Traffic growth to Asia was spurred by the opening of the international voice mar­ ket in India where traffic increased by 190 percent, and the tripling of traffic to Philippines (see Figure 8. Inbound Growth to Top VoiP Destinations, 2002). China remained the top destination in Asia, but growth has slowed as the market has matured-China opened its international voice market to VoiP in 1999 (see Figure 5. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Asia, 2001-2003). Europe. VoiP traffic to Europe grew by just over 50 percent in 2002. Eastern European countries received 85 percent of this VoiP traffic, but only 15 percent of Europes international PSTN traffic. Conversely, Western European countries received 85 percent of cross-border PSTN traffic but only 15 percent of international Vol P traf­ fic. Poland, Russia, and Bulgaria accounted for more than half of Europes inbound VoiP traffic in 2002 (see Figure 6. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Europe, 2001- 2003). Figure 4. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in latin America, 2001-2003 Percent ofTotallncoming VoiP to Region 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Mexico Colombia Brazil Peru Argentina Venezuela El Salvador Ecuador Guatemala Chile Costa Rica Nicaragua ., Notes: Total inbound VoiP traffic to Latin America was 5.6 billion minutes in 2002. Voice-over·IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on the PSTN, PC·to·PC commuljications and private network traffic are excluded. Year 2003 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2003. source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Figure 5. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Asia, 2001-2003 Percent ofTotallncoming VoiP to Region 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% ------China Philippines India Hong Kong Thailand Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Vietnam Bangladesh Notes: Total inbound VoiP traffic to Asia was 5.4 billion minutes in 2002. Voice-over-IP {VoiP) traffic includes all cross­ border voice calls carried on I P networks but terminated on the PSTN, PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Year 2003 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2003. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Figure 6. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in East Europe, 2001-2003 Poland Russia Bulgaria Ukraine Turkey Romania Hungary Czech Republic Serbia & Montenegro Moldova Lithuania Croatia Percent of Incoming VoiP to Region 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Notes: Total inbound VoiP traffic to Europe was 3.8 billion minutes in 2002 Voice-over-IP {VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on the PSTN, PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Year 2003 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2003. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 VOIP TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 33 VOIP 34 Figure 7. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Africa, 2001-2003 Percent ofTotallncoming VoiP to Region 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Senegal Nigeria Kenya Gambia Zimbabwe Cote dlvoire South Africa Ghana Cameroon Egypt Morocco Notes: Total inbound VoiP traffic to Africa was 750 million minutes in 2002. Voice·over-1 P (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on the PSTN, PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Year 2003 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2003. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Africa. Traffic to Africa grew over 200 percent in 2002, far faster than any other world region However, this rapid growth is due, in part, to the small size of the overall VoiP market in Africa Half of the inbound international VoiP in Africa terminated in Senegal and Nigeria (see Figure 7. Global VoiP Traffic Termination in Africa, 2001-2003) Middle East. VoiP has still not made substantial inroads in the Middle East, except in Israel. The environment is right for VoiP to flourish-high settlement rates and grow­ ing IP infrastructure-but, the incumbents have, thus far, been successful in limiting set­ tlement-rate bypass. Routes Although VoiP call ing patterns run roughly parallel to established PSTN demand, the largest share of VoiP traffic is terminated in countries where existing PSTN settlement rates are highest relative to the actual cost of transporting the call. Also, because quality expectations may be lower on many popular arbitrage routes, VoiP calls com­ pare favorably to the mediocre quality of many circuit-switched and mobile terminated calls The impact on overall traffic flows can be significant-in countries with sufficient infrastructure and high settlement rates, VoiP accounts for up to 15 percent of total iritoming traffic on a given route (see Figure 9 Incoming VoiP Traffic on Selected Routes 2002) TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Figure 8. Inbound Growth to Top VoiP Destinations, 2002 2l " a: 600% 500% 400% .:; 300% 0 (5 200% 100% 0% " ·;::: Q) Ol z Cii " (/) Ol Q) Q) c: c: c: Q) ·c. Q) g- (/) :.c c.. .!!! "C " 0 " "C c: :.0 (..) Q) c: E " E ")( :.c 0 Q) ::I - 0 c.. 0 :2 1- - ·;;;; " "iii " (/) cO ::I a: Notes: Chart includes data from top three destinations of international VoiP traffic in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and latin America. Traffic data based on carrier reported traffic for 2002. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 The clearest example of this trend is traffic on the U.S.-Mexico route, which accounted for over 18 percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic between 2001 and 2003 (see Figure 10. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2001-2003) Routes into the Philippines, Poland, and China are still growing strongly and accounted for another 15 percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic during the same time period. Routes to Poland and the Philippines have seen the most growth between 2001 and 2002, each growing by over 200 percent (see Figure 11 Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2001- 2002). Traffic to India grew 190 percent, driven by the introduction of international competition VoiP is still a logical alternative on routes like these where the combina­ tion of market liberalization and relatively high termination rates create perfect condi­ tions for arbitrage. Wholesale VoiP While many new and incumbent carriers have begun to build IP networks that will carry their voice traffic in coming years, most wholesale VoiP traffic is still carried by a hand­ ful of specialist providers acting as carriers carriers. Most of these specialist whole­ salers use regular Internet transit to carry their voice traffic; others use private lines running IP. Some use a combination of the two, along with PSTN "failover" circuits where IP connections are too thin too few, or too congested. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 35 VOIP 36 Figure 9. Incoming VoiP Traffic to Selected Countries, 2002 1000 900 800 " 700 c: 600 :g " 500 :::> c: 400 " c: .E 300 0 .> ..!: 200 100 0 " " ""0 " " .> -;;; c: ·;;; -~ E 2 ·;;; " .: -;;; "S .: " 1- ::;; " "5 :::> 0 " (/) Notes: Traffic data based on carrier reported traffic for 2002. Source: TeleGeography research " " " c: :;; .> 0 .: ;;: a; ""0 " 0 " t1 ::;; 0 u "" © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Regardless of the the companies network architecture, VoiP carriers share the same goal: arbitrage. VoiP carriers take advantage of differences between official PSTN set­ tlement fees and de facto termination rates by using IP to transport their voice traffic. Arbitrage continues to act as the primary driver for the prodigious growth of interna­ tional VoiP traffic. Many well-established telephone companies may still consider VoiP an experiment and sometimes see it as a threat to existing revenue streams; however, this view seems to be changing. Established PSTN carriers are increasingly using VoiP technology and adding VoiP services to their list of offerings. While a large portion of VoiP traffic car­ ried by established carriers is bundled into enterprise services on private networks, some carriers are beginning to carry significant volumes of wholesale VoiP over their long-haul networks. Telecom ltalia Deutsche Telecom and Reach are some of the most prominent incumbent carriers offering wholesale VoiP services. A notable exception to the incumbents cautious transition to VoiP is China Telecom. Since the first VoiP licenses were issued in 1999, China Telecom reports that VoiP traf­ fic has grown to comprise almost half of its international traffic in 2002. This aston­ ishing growth, however, was probably more the result of fierce competition to maintain niarket share against low-priced VoiP competitors than an intentional shift away from its PSTN network. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 10. Top 25 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2001-2003 Percent of Total Outgoing VoiP Minutes Rank Route 2003 Route Share 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 1. U.S. to Mexico ........... 18.3% 2. U.S. to Philippines .. 5.8% 3. U.S. to Poland ...... ... .4.3% 4. U.S. to China .. .. ... 4.1% 5. U.S. to Colombia .. .... 3.5% 6. U.S. to India .... ... ...... 3.2% 7. U.S. to Brazil ......... 2.9% 8. U.S. to Russia ....... .. ... 2.0% 9. U.S. to Thailand ..... 1.9% 10. U.S. to Peru .. .. .... .. 1.8% 11. U.S. to Indonesia ... ... 1.6% 12. U.S. to Bulgaria ... .... ... 1.6% 13. U.S. to Ukraine .... 1.6% 14. U.S. to Canada .. ... .. 1.4% 15. U.S. to Argentina 1.3% 16. U.S. to Turkey .. ..... 1.2% 17. U.S. to Romania ........ .. 1.2% 18. U.S. to Senegal .... ... 1.2% 19. U.S. to Israel ............. 1.1% 20. U.S. to U.K .. .. ...... 1.1% 21. U.S. to Nigeria .. ... .. 1.1% 22. U.S. to Germany ......... 1.0% 23. U.S. to Hong Kong .. .. 0.7% 24. U.S. to Greece ........ .. 0.7% 25. U.S. to Hungary .. ...... 0.7% Notes: Route rankings are based on actual traffic reports by major wholesale and retail VoiP carriers. Figures do not include all VoiP carriers and routes, however, some omissions may have occurred. Year 2003 rankings are based on statistics supplied for the first six months of 2003. In 2003, routes omitted from this table may have accounted for almost 30 percent of U.S.-originated VoiP traffic. Data may include some traffic that was hubbed in the U.S., but not originated there. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 37 VOIP 38 Figure 11. Growth on Top 10 U.S.-Originated VoiP Routes, 2001-2002 250% 200% e 150% " a:: 100% 50% 0% .. ., c: ·c. :.c: 0. -c " " c: i5 :.0" E. E 0 0. 0 0 - " 0 -~ " " c: u ·;;; ·;;; :.c: ·;;: a; ., .. - ., c: :::> :2 0 a:: -c E. Notes: Voice-over-IP (VoiP) traffic includes all cross-border voice calls carried on IP networks but terminated on pub­ lic switched telephone networks; PC-to-PC communications and private network traffic are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 While some established PSTN carriers are utilizing their own IP networks to carry voice traffic, most are still outsourcing a large portion of their VoiP traffic to middle men. Both iBasis and ITXC carried over 2.5 billion minutes of international traffic in 2002 constituting about one-third of the VoiP market-volumes comparable to the largest switched carriers. ITXC and iBasis carried this traffic for numerous incumbents, as well as for many major U.S. carriers, including the Regional Bell Operating Companies. One reflection of the incumbents growing faith in VoiP as a transmission platform was Teleglobe s recent acquisition of ITXC. Instead of deploying its own VoiP network, Teleglobe chose to expand its range of services by acquiring one of the largest global VoiP networks. This move also highlights the changing view of traditional carriers towards transporting voice traffic on the public Internet. The cost and time efficiencies of interconnecting with other carriers have begun to overcome one of the main imped­ iments to a complete embrace of VoiP: call quality. Interconnecting with a public Internet backbone involves having a gateway and access to the Internet as opposed to setting up a dedicated connection between two carriers and reconfiguring the network with the addition of each new PoP. This network architecture is also appealing to new international carriers in emerging rriarkets. Whereas incumbents have been slow to roll out their own VoiP networks, the short deployment times and lower initial infrastructure investment seem to make VoiP the preferred transmission platform of new carriers. Data Access-b~cked by PCCW­ began offering voice services in mid-2002 soon after the opening of the Indian market • TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 12. If You Cant Beat Them ... Cloaked in the "gray area" of international tele­ com regulation, Vol~ has posed new threats to established revenue streams, especially in pro­ tected single carrier markets. However, some of the worlds aging international carrier monopolies have taken the decision to embrace, rather than fight, VoiP. These incumbents are partnering with VoiP carriers to terminate-and increasingly, originate-traffic to augment revenue rather than lose it. Incumbents in Venezuela, Philippines, Vietnam, and many other economies have formed Source: TeleGeography research partnerships with wholesale VoiP carriers. The incumbents must balance cannibalization of tradi­ tional revenue streams while capturing a portion of the traffic they are losing to illicit bypass. More information about how carriers and regulatory organizations are dealing with the introduction of VoiP in their markets can be found in a series of case studies published by the ITU (http://www.itu. inti osg/spu/casestudies/index.html#iptel). © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 to international competition. The companys rapid deployment of VoiP services has enabled it to achieve tremendous growth rates. Data Access claims to have already captured 30 percent of Indias international long-distance market in a mere six months. In Latin America outbound PSTN traffic has actually declined for the first time. This, at a time when markets have recently opened or are in the process of opening and com­ petition is rife, may indicate a shift by new carriers to VoiP as the transmission tech­ nology of choice. In Bolivia, the competitive carrier COTAS-Teledata took a different approach than competitors to rapidly gain market share upon the deregulation of the Bolivian market. The company outsourced its domestic and international long-distance network to ITXC. And from the first day of the deregulation, at the end of 2001, ITXC has been carrying COTAS-Teledata s long-distance traffic while other competing carri­ ers network buildouts were initially mired by funding issues. Incumbents adoption of VoiP has been more deliberate for a variety of reasons. Although call quality has frequently been cited as an obstacle, incumbents willingness to route traffic via wholesale VoiP carriers suggests that this concern is not insur­ mountable. More crucially, incumbents (and other established PSTN operators) have invested billions of dollars in PSTN equipment. As this equipment reaches the end of its depreciation cycle, voice traffic from incumbents can be expected to steadily migrate to IP networks. Retail VoiP Many VoiP specialists have been taking a direct path to the consumer by way of PC­ to-PC, PC-to-phone. and phone card calling plans. Companies such as Net2Phone, deltathree, Callserve, and Go2Call reported significant volumes of PC-to-phone traffic. Net2Phone continues to dominate the retail market with over 650 million minutes of international traffic in 2002. While retail carriers volumes are small in comparison to ITXC and iBasis, their per-minute rates are significantly higher. Many retail VoiP carri­ ers also offer wholesale services; however, like their switched counterparts, many are focusing more on the end user as wholesale margins evaporate. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 39 VOIP 40 Figure 13. Protocols The capabilities of a VoiP network-that is, what can be delivered to the consumer-are largely determined by the standards implemented. To date, the most widely deployed standard for han­ dling VoiP traffic has been H.323, a protocol developed under ITU auspices in the late 1990s for video communications over local area net­ works. Now in its fourth iteration, H.323 has been re-engineered specifically to handle VoiP calls. Although H.323 is nearly ubiquitous in VoiP net­ works, a second standard, Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), has become widely accepted as the next generation protocol for VoiP call delivery. Its acceptance, however, has less to do with voice than it does with video and other premium Source: TeleGeography research 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 par­ ticularly attractive scenario to VoiP carriers (and their vendors), which have had difficulty deriving much profit from the razor-thin margins associ­ ated with carrying voice traffic, espec ially on competitive routes. Although there was much hype surrounding the potential of SIP to revolu­ tionize the VoiP industry-peaking with the release of the much publicized integration of SIP with Windows XP-few new applications have been developed so far. The advantages SIP may bring to the Vol P industry are still compelling but have yet to be realized on a large scale. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 In 2002, VoiP operators such as Vonage and 8x8, which offer voice services in the U.S. over residential broadband connections, elbowed their way into the media spotlight. Initial growth has been dramatic: Vonages subscribership grew to over 100,000 within its first year of offering services. Although this growth has been dramatic, broadband VoiP customers still represent only a tiny fraction of the approximately 187 million local loops in service in the U.S .. U.S. cable TV companies have also announced that they will deploy VoiP via their broadband networks. However, the reality of cable-TV operators deployments has not kept pace with the surrounding rhetoric. Most deployments have been limited regional trials, and large-scale rollouts of VoiP over broadband cable are not expected until the end of 2004 or 2005. In Japan, broadband penetration is slightly lower than the U.S.; however, broadband VoiP subscribers are much more numerous. Broadband services provider Softbank BB began offering VoiP services mid-2002. By year-end 2002, the company had over 1.2 million subscribers and has grown in 2003 to about 2 percent of total phone lines. This striking growth has stimulated NTT and other major Japanese broadband providers to begin offering voice services over their IP networks. While most of these VoiP-via-broadband operators have emphasized the VolP compo­ nent of their service offering, few (if any) of these service providers operate their own international VoiP networks. Instead, the long-haul portion of the call is typically routed via wholesale carriers-most of which operate switched networks. So, in essence, unless both the caller and the person being called are customers of the same V61P telephone company, only the first leg of the call involves an IP network. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Figure 14. VoiPs Regulatory Status in the U.S. VoiP has enjoyed a relatively unregulated status in the U.S. While end-users may regard VoiP as being comparable to plain old telephone service, the FCC treats VoiP as an "infor­ mation service; because VoiP traffic traverses the Internet. rather than the PSTN. The U.S. Congress has mandated that the Internet and other interactive computer services, or, "information services; remain unfettered by state and federal regulation to promote healthy free market competition. Thus, VoiP has not been not subject to the same charges, taxes and fees as a basic telecommunications services under the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Much of the current regulatory status of VoiP was defined in the 1998 Stevens Report. a report by the FCC apprising Congress of certain provisions of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 regarding the universal service system. The report confirmed that Internet services were "information services" and would remain unregulated and thus not obliged to con­ tribute to the Universal Service Fund (US F). While phone-to­ phone VoiP may resemble "telecommunication services· more closely than "information services; the FCC determined not to make any definitive pronouncements until it had a more detailed record of individual service offerings. The report con­ cluded that, although VoiP providers do not directly contribute to the USF, they pay indirectly through leasing of private lines. Since then, phone-to-phone VoiP has remained in regulatory limbo. As the VoiP industry has grown, however, the regulatory debate has heated up at the state level. RBOCs and state pub­ lic utility commissions have begun to eye what they see as the loss of significant revenues under VoiPs current unregulated status. Perhaps more worryingly, the lighter regulatory burden imposed on Vol P service provider affords them a significant competitive advantage over PSTN service providers. Although Source: TeleGeography research Whats Next? the regulatory status of VoiP has not ch~nged at the federal level since Stevens Report, a number of state governments have begun investigating whether VoiP should be regulated within their jurisdiction. In August and September 2003, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California moved to regulate VoiP carriers. Minnesota was the first state to decide that a VoiP carrier, Von age, should be reg­ ulated and taxed as a traditional phone company, required to obtain business licenses and begin to pay fees to support state services such as 911. Wisconsins Public Service Commission followed suit and contacted at least one VoiP car­ rier, 8x8, regarding a change in their regulatory status. California is latest and largest state to begin regulating VoiP carriers as traditional phone companies. Que to the states size and importance, some feel that the decisions made by Californias Public Utility commission (PUC) may have some influence on future FCC rulings. All the recent regulatory activity has not been against VoiP carriers, however. A federal judge found that the Minnesota findings were in conflict with federal law and issued a perma­ nent injunction against the PUCs August ruling. In Pennsylvania, a state senator introduced a bill in September for a statewide moratorium on regulating or taxing VoiP carri­ ers for five years. As an increasing number of state PUCs begin to evaluate the regulatory status of VoiP, Chairman Michael Powell announced that the FCC will hold a forum on these issues in December 2003 to review the FCCs regulation of VoiP. A formal ruling by the FCC is anticipated within 12 months of this forum. The international telecommunications industry will be watching with interest as the regulatory drama unfolds in the U.S. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 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 and VoiP have no doubt played a significant role in accelerating this process in the last few years, and forecasting the effect on actual traffic flows remains an extremely difficult endeavor. Moreover, as new IP com­ munications services and devices become available, they may stimulate new demand and increase VoiP traffic flows beyond the growth rates characteristic of the traditional voice telephony market. We will be watching-and reporting-these developments as they occur. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 VOIP 41 VOIP 42 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 I MOBILES International Traffic to and from Mobile Phones Over the past decade, rapid growth has transformed mobile telephony from a niche market segment to a formidable market force in international telecommunications. In 2002, mobile lines overtook fixed lines globally, passing from 4 7 to 52 percent of totaf· lines. Ten years ago, the portion of calling opportunities (total possible calls between telephone numbers) involving mobiles was less than ten percent. In 2003, the ITU expects mobile calls (both to and from mobiles) to account for over 70 percent of worldwide calling opportunities. As a result of its growth and ubiquity, mobile teleph­ ony has become an important issue for investors, consumers. regulators, and, not least of all, international carriers. That mobiles represent such a significant portion of calling opportunities underscores their relevance to international operators. The more calls (and, thus, international calls) that involve mobiles, the more wholesale revenue mobile operators may gener­ ate for international carriers-and the more termination costs international carriers pay out to mobile operators. Given the significant differential between fixed- and mobile- Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribers by Region, 2002 International Traffic Subscribers Africa From Mobiles From Mobiles Africa L America & Caribbean U.S. & Canada Europe Total= 27 bn minutes Total= 1,031 million From Fixed From Fixed Africa l. America & Caribbean Africa Total= 128 bn minutes Total= 1,031 million Source: ITU and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 43 MOBILES 44 termination prices, even a small increase in mobile-terminated traffic can result in a significant increase in total termination costs. Over the past year, mobile-originated traffic grew from 15 percent of total international traffic to 17 percent while mobile-ter­ minated traffic rose from just over 23 percent to 25 percent. As that proportion grows, mobile traffic will become an even greater consideration for long-distance carriers. Mobile Traffic Growth in international mobile traffic has generally exceeded that of international fixed traffic of the past few years, reflecting the boom in mobile subscribership. The matu­ ration of many mobile markets (particularly Europe) has dampened global subscriber growth from 54 percent in 1998 to 23 percent in 2002 down slightly from 29 percent in 2001 Even so, many other markets have shown robust growth in subscribership over the past year. Registering a 55 percent jump, Africa continues to lead the world in subscribership increases, largely due to countries with blistering growth rates such as Nigeria ( 1000 percent growth in 2001 and 395 percent in 2002) The United States and Canada remains the only region of the world in which fixed lines still outnumber mobile subscribers, though by only four percent. figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999-2002 30.0% 25.0% " :0 0 :2 E _g -o 20.0% " = ·a, ·c 0 .> :E 15.0% 1- " = 0 ·.;::; " E 10.0% = 0 -= Q) Q) a.. 5.0% 0.0% ·, Africa Latin America & U.S. & Canada Caribbean Notes: Numbers show total mobile-originated traffic minutes in billions. Source: ITU and TeleGeogr~phy research TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 1999 • 2000 7.2 • 2001 •2002 Europe Asia & Pacific Total © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 International mobile traffic has likewise experienced declining growth in recent years. though growth rates appear to be stabilizing. The volume of mobile-originated inter­ national traffic grew approximately 19 percent, from 22.7 billion minutes to 27.9 bil­ lion minutes, between 2001 and 2002. While almost triple the global switched growth rate, mobile traffic growth is roughly the same as the previous year. The distribution of traffic across regions has remained relatively constant over the past four years, with Europe representing 59 percent of the worlds mobile-originated international traffic. Between 2001 and 2002, Europes share declined slightly due to growth in other regions, such as Asia & Pacific and Africa [see Figure 1. Mobile versus Fixed International Traffic and Subscribers by Region, 2002). Regional traffic growth rates tend to reflect differences in subscribership growth, vary­ ing considerably across the world. Africa, again, scored high with a 37 percent increase in mobile-originated international traffic. Latin America & Caribbean decreased from 13 to seven percent growth, on par with its decline in subscribership growth. Interestingly, while Asia & Pacific subscribership growth shrunk slightly between 2001 and 2002, its mobile-originated traffic growth was higher than the previous year. Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic, 2000-2002 35.0% 30.0% en 2 :.0 25.0% 0 ::2: s -c 20.0% " c: § Q) 1- 15.0% " ..:: 0 l:: Q) 10.0% r= Q) c.. 5.0% 0.0% Africa Latin America & U.S. & Canada Asia & Pacific Caribbean Notes: Numbers show total mobile-terminated traffic minutes in billions. Source: TeleGeography research Europe •2000 •2001 World MOBILES © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 45 MOBILES 46 figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic An increase in mobile subscribers has a greater impact on international voice traffic than a comparable increase in fixed­ line subscribers: fixed lines dont cross political borders with their users, but mobile handsets do. International roaming not only provides a valuable service to mobile users through "seamless" connectivity; it also generates demand for inter­ national telecommunications transport. To illustrate the contri­ bution mobile roaming makes to international voice traffic flows, lets consider the case of a German mobile user travel­ ing in Austria. Upon activating her handset, the German traveler will select an Austrian host network on which to operate. Network selection may be performed manually, in which case the user chooses a host network from a list of available networks. Manual selection locks the mobile user into a specific net­ work, to which the handset will return if the signal is lost or the handset deactivated. More likely, though, host network selection will be performed automatically by the handset, either on the basis of signal strength or preferences pre-pro­ grammed by the users home provider. This selection process establishes a connection between the home and host net­ works, allowing the host network to locate the user and pro­ viding the host network with authentication and billing information. When the German traveler makes a call from her handset, the call will be processed by the Austrian host network. Thus, when calling another German number, the call will be picked up by the host network and then transmitted along the PSTN to Germany for termination. The resulting traffic, while connect­ ing two German numbers, actually constitutes an international call from Austria to Germany. Conversely, if one of the travelers friends in Germany calls her mobile, the call will be forwarded by her home network, via the PSTN, to Austria, where it will be picked up and delivered by the Austrian host network. Again, the call between two German numbers is, in fact, an international call between Germany and Austria. Source: TeleGeography research In either case, the German traveler will incur a roaming charge for using the Austrian network. That charge, plus a markup from her home provider, will then be billed directly to her. For originating calls, the charges she receives are those dictated by the pricing scheme (peak/off-peak, etc.) of the Austrian operator, not her home provider. Billing between operators is generally handled by clearinghouses which com­ pile roaming call records from host networks and distribute them to the users home networks. The clearinghouse also calculates and collects the charges due the host network operators. Some operators opt to handle roaming relationship and billing management themselves,. but clearinghouses are by and large the industry standard. In the above example, weve made a number of assumptions in order to illustrate how roaming contributes to international voice traffic. One of the principal assumptions is the existence of a roaming agreement between the travelers home mobile provider and at least one Austrian provider. Such agreements are quite common, especially among GSM operators. The GSM Association has established a standard roaming agree­ ment in order to facilitate roaming between providers, as negotiating separate agreements for multiple providers would be prohibitively complicated or, at least, utterly tedious. By illustrating intra-European roaming, weve also avoided dis­ cussing the technical interoperability necessary for interna­ tional roaming. The European Union shares a common digital standard, GSM, which has been pivotal in facilitating roaming across its member states. GSM has also been deployed in other nations across the globe, but there are other digital stan­ dards (COMA, TDMA, etc.) in use. lnterstandard roaming is thus a central issue for truly global roaming. World phones, capable of functioning on GSM and COMA networks across the globe, are expected to be launched commercially, at least in the U.S., by the end of 2003. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Overall mobile-originated traffic increased from 15.6 percent to 17.4 percent of out­ going international call volumes (see Figure 2. Percent of Mobile-Originated International Traffic, 1999-2002) The growth of mobile-terminated traffic dropped significantly more than mobile-origi­ nated traffic between 2001 and 2002, increasingly only 17 percent .(compared to 36 pe,rcent the previous year) Worldwide, approximately 25 percent of international call volumes, or 36 billion minutes, are terminated on mobile phones. European users TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 MOBILES Figure 5. Mobile Subscribers and International Traffic for Selected Countries, 2002 • Mobile-Originated (m minsl • Mobile-Terminated lm minutes) Austria • Subscribers lml Belgium Brazil Hungary Korea, Rep. Pakistan Qatar 0.3 South Africa Swaziland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Share to/from Mobiles Notes: Numbers show absolute levels of mobile subscriber and traffic. lengths of bars show relative levels to/from mobiles. Mobile subscriber percentage is based on total number of lines in service. Source: ITU and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 again received the bulk of mobile-terminated traffic, with a 56 percent share of the world s total. Europes share declined roughly one percent over the past year, reflect­ ing stronger mobile-terminated growth rates in almost all other regions of the world. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 47 MOBILES 48 Figure 6. International Call Prices: Mobile versus Fixed, 2002-2003 $0.30 :::> Callstofi~ed .S $0.25 E phones cheaper t;; 0 c. $0.20 0 2002 0 ·~ $0.25 t;; c. 0 2003 Calls to fixed phones cheaper 0 2 ~000 .!!! :c $0.15 $0.20 2 .!!! $0.15 B 0 0 Cb 0 0 o 0 o i B Galls to mobile " phones cheaper $0.10 a: Q) -;;; " 0 $0.05 .s= :5: $0.00 $0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 Wholesale Rates to Fixed (US$ per minute) $0.30 " $0.10 a: Q) -;;; $0.05 Calls to mobile phones cheaper $0.00 "-_....._ _ __,_ _ ...__ _ _._ _ __.. _ ___, $0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 Wholesale Rates to Fixed {US$ per minute) Notes: Rates are from the Arbinet-thexchange New York switch on September 2002 and September 2003. Each point represents the wholesale price per minute from New York to fixed and mobile dialing codes within a single country. Source: AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Regional growth rates of mobile-terminated traffic were less varied than for mobile­ originated traffic, with most regions registering between 15 and 30 percent increases. Such consistency across world regions may indicate a maturing of the mobile-termi­ nated market. Nevertheless. growth remains robust even in the most mature of regional markets. Europes volume growth was a healthy 15 percent in 2002 (see Figure 3. Percent of Mobile-Terminated International Traffic, 2000-2002) Despite slowing growth rates, international mobile traffic growth will likely continue to outpace fixed traffic growth as mobile penetration increases and substitution occurs. Roaming is often cited as a contributor to international mobile traffic growth, but its effects are difficult to quantify and often rather volatile. For example, mobile opera­ tors in Singapore reported a significant decline in roaming traffic during the height of SARS panic. (For a discussion of how roaming contributes to international mobile traf­ fic see Figure 4. Roaming and International Mobile Traffic.). Worth noting is that while mobiles account for over half of the worlds calling destinations, only a quarter of inter­ national call volumes are terminated on mobile-and even less are originated on mobiles. That disparity may indicate some room for growth, but such growth may rely heavily on mobile substitution of fixed phones. Termination and Regulation With growing amounts of international traffic flowing to mobile handsets, mobile ter­ mination costs have become an increasingly important issue for international carriers, consumers, and regulatory agencies. Terminating traffic on mobile networks is almost uh,iversally more expensive than terminating traffic on fixed networks, resulting in a sig­ nificant differential between call prices to mobile and fixed phones. Figure 6 charts the TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 MOBILES Figure 7. Interconnection, Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Select Countries, 2003 • Interconnection (US$/min) Wholesale (US$/min) Retail (US$/min) Mobile% Mobile% Mobile% Country Fixed Mobile of Fixed Fixed Mobile of Fixed Fixed Mobile of Fixed France 0.03 0.13 452.4% 0.01 0.13 1066.7% 0.12 0.31 258.3% Germany 0.02 0.26 1198.2% 0.01 0.16 1341.7% 0.12 0.28 233.3% Hungary 0.03 0.16 558.6% 0.03 0.14 511.1% 0.27 0.41 151.9% Italy 0.02 0.17 854.9% 0.01 0.13 1066.7% 0.12 0.27 225.0% Portugal 0.02 0.22 1118.6% 0.02 0.16 815.0% 0.12 0.31 258.3% Spain 0.03 0.23 896.8% 0.01 0.15 1363.6% 0.12 0.30 250.0% Sweden 0.01 0.11 1118.8 0.01 0.12 958.3% 0.12 0.28 233.3% Switzerland 0.02 0.28 1439.8% 0.02 0.19 1206.3% 0.12 0.33 275.0% Notes: Percent reflects the mobile rate as a percentage of the fixed rate Wholesale rates are from New York as of September 2003. Retail rates are from AT&T. Interconnection rates are for national interconnection. Source: AXCESSRAJESM by Arbinet-thexchange and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 differences between wholesale rates to f ixed and mobile phones in various countries. In some countries, such as the United States and Canada, there are no additional charges associated with mobile termination and wholesale prices are equal. In coun­ tries, such as Spain, wholesale costs to mobiles may be up to 14 times those of calls to fixed lines. In order to illustrate the economic effects of terminating international traffic on mobile networks, TeleGeography estimated the costs of mobile termination based on wholesale pricing information gathered from the Band-X Switched Minutes Exchange. Though the wholesale rates may not be an exact reflection of actual carrier costs, they serve as an excellent proxy, as differences in wholesale rates between fixed and mobile termination mirror the differences in interconnection rates. If anything, the wholesale rates may provide too conservative an estimate, as the differences between fixed and mobile wholesale rates are sometimes less dramatic than the corresponding interconnection rates (see Figure 7. Interconnection, Wholesale, and Retail Prices for Select Countries, 2002) Note that in some cases, the wholesale rate is actually at or below the inter­ connection rate as a result of gray market arrangements. Where the rates for fixed and mobile termination are in line, e.g., Paraguay, mobile traf­ fic does not contribute significantly more to the cost of terminating traffic in a partic­ ular country. Where the difference is more substantial, mobile traffic contributes disproportionately to the total cost of termination (see Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2002). Wholesale rates to Portuguese mobiles, for example, are nine times those to Portuguese fixed lines. Thus, while 37 percent of incoming international traffic is terminated on mobiles, they account for over 80 percent of termination costs. Given the dramatic differences in rates, a slight increase in mobile-terminated traffic may thus produce an appreciable increase in termination costs. In Europe, for example, mobile-terminated calls accounted for 32 percent of incoming international traffic up only two points over the © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 49 MOBILES Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2002 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 Cameroon 50.0 44.4% 0.18 0.18 5.01 3.99 44.4% Congo, Dem. Rep. 8.8 62.0% 0.15 0.19 0.50 1.04 67.4% Ethiopia 34.3 8.4% 0.37 0.46 11.62 1.33 10.3% Ghana 153.0 32.0% 0.08 0.09 8.32 4.41 34.6% Kenya 69.2 40.0% 0.15 0.15 6.23 4.15 40.0% Madagascar 26.0 34.1% 0.20 0.22 3.43 1.95 36.3% Morocco 736.7 44.3% 0.18 0.23 73.90 75.02 50.4% Senegal 183.4 32.5% 0.17 0.18 21.05 10.72 33.8% Uganda 13.3 47.6% 0.11 0.11 0.77 0.70 47.6% Africa Total 5,405.8 26.9% 0.15 0.18 585.84 266.85 31.3% Asia & Pacific Australia 2,785.5 22.1 % 0.02 0.14 43.42 86.05 66.5% Azerbaijan 69.1 28.0% 0.14 0.15 6.97 2.90 29.4% Bahrain 200.8 30.9% 0.16 0.18 22.21 11.16 33.4% Bangladesh 268.8 25.8% 0.16 0.16 31.89 11.12 25.8% Cambodia 33.4 69.0% 0.33 0.33 3.42 7.61 69.0% China 4,688.6 19.6% 0.02 0.02 75.42 18.35 19.6% Georgia 57.6 50.0% 0.06 0.07 1.73 2.02 53.8% India 2,851.6 10.9% 0.25 0.25 635.29 77.61 10.9% Indonesia 429.4 25.2% 0.06 0.12 19.26 13.01 40.3% Jordan 236.0 35.0% 0.13 0.1 4 19.94 11 .56 36.7% Korea, Rep. 928.0 35.0% 0.03 0.06 18.10 19.49 51 .9% Malaysia 1,050.0 32.0% 0.03 0.03 21 .42 10.08 32.0% New Zealand 1,567.3 20.0% 0.02 0.15 25.08 41.02 65.2% Pakistan 1,530.4 12.0% 0.24 0.24 323.21 44.09 12.0% Qatar 134.6 52.7% 0.23 0.30 14.66 21.26 59.2% Saudi Arabia 815.2 35.1% 0.17 0.19 90.01 54.29 37.6% Singapore 3,587.0 32.8% 0.01 0.02 24.10 23.53 49.4% Taiwan 2,001 .3 25.1% 0.03 0.08 44.97 40.18 47.2% Thailand 305.0 35.2% 0.10 0.10 19.78 10.72 35.2% Asia & Pacific Total 38,999.4 27.1% 0.09 0.11 2,546.19 1,208.34 32.2% Latin America & Caribbean Bol ivia 115.1 31.0% 0.19 0.20 15.09 7.14 32.1% Brazil 1,410.7 18.0% 0.07 0.10 80.97 25.39 23.9% Chile 760.0 15.0% 0.02 0.11 12.92 12.54 49.3% Colombia 815.8 14.9% 0.08 0.08 55.54 9.72 14.9% Guatemala 817.7 28.3% 0.15 0.18 87.98 41.61 32.1% Haiti 54.7 20.9% 0.23 0.29 9.96 3.31 24.9% Mexico 5,836.9 27.2% 0.10 0.12 424.76 190.69 31 .0% Panama 125.9 25.6% 0.16 0.20 14.98 6.46 30.1% Paraguay 71.4 45.6% 0.20 0.22 7.76 7.17 48.0% L America & Carib. Total 17,471.5 24.3% 0.11 0.13 1,444.68 555.35 27.8% Notes: Global traffic to destination equals total incoming traffic to each country in 2002 and includes both traffic reported to TeleGeography and estimates. As incoming traffic is much more difficult to track than outgoing traffic, the sum of regional averages for incoming traffic does not directly compare to that of outgoing traffic. Bypass, refile, and a number of other factors contribute to the apparent "deficit· Rates are from the Band-X london switch as of August 2002. Total cost to fixed and mobile destinations are estimated by multiplying the volume of total international minutes to fixed and mobile phones in each country by the wholesale rates to fixed and mobile destinations in the respective country. Figures may show rounding errors and weighting in calculations for regional averages Source: Band-X ltd. and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 50 TElEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 MOBILES Figure 8. Estimated Costs of Wholesale Traffic to Fixed and Mobile Destinations, 2002 (Continued) Global Traffic Wholesale Rate Total Cost to Destination (m min) to Destination (US$/min) of Traffic (US$ m) Destination Total Traffic %to Mobile Fixed Mobile Fixed Mobile %to Mobile Europe Austria 1.721.0 43.7% 0.02 0.16 19.39 120.26 86.1% Bulgaria 213.0 25.0% 0.06 0.14 9.59 7.46 43.8% Czech Republic 580.0 42.2% 0.03 0.13 10.06 31 .80 76.0% Denmark 1,203.2 28.0% 0.02 0.14 17.33 47.17 73.1% Finland 398.6 42.0% 0.02 0.15 4.62 25.11 84.5% France 8,899.4 27.1% 0.02 0.16 129.75 385.88 74.8% Germany 15,092.5 28.0% 0.02 0.1 5 217.33 633.89 74.5% Greece 935.0 31 .0% 0.04 0.11 25.81 31.88 53.3% Hungary 448.5 33.0% 0.04 0.15 12.02 22.20 64.9% Italy 5,889.3 50.3% 0.02 0.16 58.54 473.96 89.0% Luxembourg 394.1 35.0% 0.02 0.09 5.12 12.41 70.6% Malta 65.5 32.5% 0.05 0.12 2.21 2.56 53.6% Moldova 191 .4 20.8% 0.07 0.07 10.61 2.79 20.8% Netherlands 2,802.2 38.0% 0.02 0.19 34.75 202.32 85.3% Norway 1,192.8 23.2% 0.01 0.13 9.16 36.05 79.7% Portugal 1,310.3 37.4% 0.02 0.18 16.40 88.24 84.3% Slovak Republic 278.0 33.4% 0.05 0.14 9.26 13.00 58.4% Spain 3.415.3 33.0% 0.01 0.18 22.88 202.87 89.9% Sweden 1.427.6 28.0% 0.01 0.14 10.28 55.96 84.5% Switzerland 3,338.1 35.0% 0.02 0.17 43.40 198.62 82.1% Europe Total 69,520.9 31.6% 0.03 0.15 1.237.60 3,380.57 73.2% U.S. & Canada Canada 9,595.3 6.2% 0.02 0.02 180.01 11.90 3.2% United States 14,249.8 5.0% 0.02 0.02 270.75 14.25 5.0% U.S. & Canada Total 23,845.1 5.5% 0.02 0.02 450.75 26.15 5.5% Notes: See facing page. Source: Band-X Ltd. and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 previous year. The mobile percentage of termination costs, however, increased from 69 to 73 percent. These cost estimates are meant to be solely illustrative, but the eco­ nomic effects they imply are definitely real. The grave economic reality of these effects, exacerbated by burgeoning call volumes, has fomented a complete reversal in regulatory trends over the past few years. Where national regulatory agencies (NRAs) were once more concerned with stimulating the industry growth and competition often through implementing calling party pays (CPP) payment structures and pricing constraints on fixed interconnection, they are now scru­ tinizing the charges levied for connection to mobile networks and, in some cases, inter­ vening on behalf of fixed-line operators. The European Union, long a leader in both international traffic and mobile penetration, has been most notorious for its pronounced interconnection price differentials (occa­ sionally as severe as 2,000 percent), attracting vociferous complaints not only from © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 51 MOBILES Figure 9. Payment Structures for Mobile Calls Two payment structures exist for mobile services: calling party pays (CPP) and receiving party pays (RPP). In the former, the party originating the call to a mobile phone pays a premium for access to the mobile network. That is, the mobile user receiving the call incurs no charge for incoming traffic to her handset. Under the RPP scheme, the premium for mobile services is incurred by the mobile user receiving the call; the calling party pays the same price as for a comparable call to a fixed-line phone. Of the two, CPP is by far the most commonly implemented payment structure, with RPP limited to only a handful of countries such as the U.S., Canada, China, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. The factors determining the choice of payment struc­ ture are largely contextual. CPP has been easy to introduce where consumers are accustomed to metered local calling and additional dialing codes were available for exclusive use by mobile providers. In countries where consumers are more accustomed to unmetered local calling or where technical obstacles (e.g., the availability of dialing codes) were encountered, RPP has been implemented. Mexico and Argentina are notable in that they have both switched from RPP to CPP during the past three years. Source: TeleGeography research Proponents of CPP argue that it increases mobile penetration, especially by facilitating pre-paid mobile services. RPP, they contend, discourages mobile usage, prompting subscribers to turn off their phones or refuse calls rather than incur the charge for receiving them. Advocates of RPP, however, point out that RPP tends to keep fixed­ mobile interconnection charges in line with prices for other forms of interconnection. In CPP mar­ kets, they contend, the mobile consumer has no incentive to consider the price for call termination on their phones when choosing a mobile provider. For customers in RPP markets, the cost of fixed­ mobile interconnection is, in fact, a consideration in provider selection, and providers have nothing to gain by inflating prices. Recent studies have supported both claims: the number of subscribers has grown more rapidly in CPP countries, while fixed-mobile interconnection prices are substan­ tially lower in RPP countries. Mexico provides an acute example of both trends. After the introduc­ tion of CPP in 1999, mobile subscribers in Mexico increased dramatically, more than doubling the previous years growth, and the effective fixed­ mobile interconnection tariff increased by approx­ imately 250 percent. Despite the increased tariff, there was a considerable increase in incoming mobile traffic. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 European fixed-line operators but also from bodies such as the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) In response to these criticisms and as part of the implementation of the European Telecommunications Regulatory Package, almost every European NRA has undertaken studies of the mobile market, with particular attention paid to intercon­ nection issues. The results have been mixed, ranging from the establishment of best­ practice guidelines for setting interconnection prices (in France) to direct mandates for cost-oriented pricing (in Sweden) to no intervention whatsoever (in Germany) Much of the variation in regulatory action hinges on the market definitions applied to mobile operators. Where operators are deemed to have significant market power (SMP). they are generally subject to greater regulatory control. Thus, in Sweden, lelia, identified as bearing SMP due to its market share, is obliged to provide cost-oriented interconnection to its mobile network while the other two mobile operators are not. Furthermore, the Swedish regulator issued a mandate stating that the competitors interconnection rates should be within 10 percent of lelias rates in order not to war­ rant further regulatory investigation and potential action. 52 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 In the United Kingdom, Oftel has deemed each of the four mobile operators to wield SMP over mobile termination due to their monopoly control over interconnection to their networks rather than their share of the overall market. As a result, all four oper­ ators are subject to regulatory intervention regarding interconnection. The broad assignment of SMP and corollary subjection to regulatory control underscores OfteiS generally aggressive stance towards reducing mobile interconnection prices. In September 2001 Oftel released its recommendations for cutting prices and imple­ menting a price cap for termination charges. Mobile operators opposed Oftels rec~· ommendation and referred the dispute to the Competition Commission. The Commission concurred with Oftel suggesting a 15 percent reduction by April 2003 and subsequent reductions over the next three years. Similar regulatory efforts have yielded disparate results. A court in the Netherlands overturned an OPTA (the Dutch NRA) ruling on fixed-mobile termination pricing earlier this year. Spanish regulator CMT mandated a 17 percent rate cut in 2002, followed by an additional seven percent reduction in October 2003. Italys regulator approved a 13 percent reduction in fixed-to-mobile call costs in June 2003 and announced the pos­ sibility of a further 20 percent reduction over 2004 and 2005. Given the relative inde­ pendence of European NRAs and the litigation pursuant to any regulatory intervention, the evolution of mobile termination rates will likely continue to be marked by such regional variations. Despite regulatory differences within the EU, mobile termination costs are clearly, if slowly, moving downward. The differential between wholesale rates to European coun­ tries has generally narrowed, though generally by less than 20 percent. Elsewhere, the gap between prices has also narrowed, by as much as 50 percent in some cases. Wholesale rates, however, are highly variable over time and may reflect illicit, grey mar­ ket arrangements rather than stable price declines. Where from Here? While such price reductions are welcome news for consumers and international carri­ ers, their effect on mobile operators may be particularly severe. According to some estimates, mobile operators depend on termination for 25 percent of their revenues. Faced with mandated price cuts, mobile operators are struggling to shore up their aver­ age revenue per user (ARPU), which is no small feat given the slow up-take of 3G serv­ ices and the inherent volatility of roaming traffic. International carriers can thus expect declines in termination costs to be much slower than pricing declines elsewhere in the international market and much more hotly contested. With mobile phones now out­ numbering fixed lines, international mobile traffic and its associated costs will undoubt­ edly be an acute concern of international operators for some time to come. MOBILES © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 53 MOBILES 54 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 I International Services of U.S. RBOCs In most of the world, the incumbent fixed-line local-exchange carrier (LEC) also domi­ nates the national and international long-distance market. The U.S. stands as an exception to this rule: AT&Ts local and long-distance services were separated in 1984" as a condition for settlement of a landmark antitrust case against AT&T. The terms of the "Modified Final Judgement" split AT&T into distinct operating companies: a long­ distance carrier (AT&T). and a group of "Regional Bell Operating Companies." The set­ tlement bequeathed the local network services market to the RBOCs but forbade them from offering long-distance services within their local-service areas. In the twenty years since, the U.S. fixed-line market has been divided into two broad classes of operators: Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) and long-distance, or "Inter­ Exchange Carriers" (IXCs) While the market for long-distance services became fiercely competitive in the 1990s, the market for local services continued to be dominated by the four RBOCs. Collectively, the four RBOCs account for approximately 87 percent of U.S. access lines-but virtually no long-distance customers (see Figure 1. RBOC Statistical Summary). However; this situation is changing rapidly. Regulatory Changes The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) dramatically changed the competitive landscape. The 1996 Act was motivated largely by two interrelated concerns. First, the U.S. Congress sought to foster greater competition for local services by, among other things, allowing the country s major long-distance carriers to compete directly for local services with incumbent carriers. The second goal and the political quid pro quo for the first, was to free the RBOCs from the antitrust constraints imposed in 1984. According to Section 271 of the 1996 Act, in order to receive FCC authorization to pro­ vide long-distance services in a state where an RBOC is the largest local exchange car­ rier. an RBOC must first prove that its local service market is actually competitive by satisfying a "14-point competitive checklist." "Section 271 Approval," as the process became known, proved to be a long, hard slog for the RBOCs. Figure 1. RBOC Statistical Summary Access lines Long-Distance Long-Distance Total Revenue Company (million) lines (mil) Revenue 2002 (billion) 2002 (billion) BeiiSouth 23.9 3.4 $0.88 $22.4 Ow est 16.5 1.1 n.a. $15.4 SBC 54.8 11 .5 $2.32 $43.1 Verizon 56.2 15.9 n.a. $67.6 Notes: Access line and long-distance line data for BeiiSouth, SBC, and Verizon for 03 2003; Owest access and long-dis­ tance data are for 02 2003. SBC reported 11.5 million long-distance customers rather than subscriber lines. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 RBOCS © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 55 RBOCS Figure 2. Section 271 Approvals RBOC State Status Date Approved RBOC Access Lines Verizon New York Approved 12/22/99 11,857,572 SBC Kansas Approved 6/30/00 1,390,959 SBC Texas Approved 6/30/00 11,844,985 SBC Oklahoma Approved 1/22/01 1,663,280 Verizon Massachusetts Approved 4/16/01 4,406,165 Verizon Connecticut Approved 7/20/01 2,381,200 Verizon Pennsylvania Approved 9/19/01 6,970,719 SBC Arkansas Approved 11/16/01 1,037,211 SBC Missouri Approved 11/16/01 3,033,011 Verizon Rhode Island Approved 2/24/02 641,977 Verizon Vermont Approved 4/17/02 360,161 BeiiSouth Georgia Approved 5/15/02 4,225,392 BeiiSouth Louisiana Approved 5/15/02 2,377,949 Verizon Maine Approved 6/19/02 731,657 Verizon New Jersey Approved 6/24/02 6,681,455 BeiiSouth Alabama Approved 9/18/02 2,260,366 BeiiSouth Kentucky Approved 9/18/02 1,805,685 BeiiSouth Mississippi Approved 9/18/02 1,345,229 BeiiSouth North Carolina Approved 9/18/02 2,892,176 BeiiSouth South Carolina Approved 9/18/02 1,720,475 Verizon Delaware Approved 9/25/02 589,979 Verizon New Hampshire Approved 9/25/02 795.753 Verizon Virginia Approved 10/30/02 4,226,700 SBC California Approved 12/19/02 23,013.488 BeiiSouth Florida Approved 12/19/02 9,027,643 BeiiSouth Tennessee Approved 12/19/02 2,673,375 Qwest Colorado Approved 12/23/02 2,812,527 Qwest Idaho Approved 12/23/02 692,507 Qwest Iowa Approved 12/23/02 1,107,337 Ow est Montana Approved 12/23/02 374,971 Ow est Nebraska Approved 12/23/02 473,127 Ow est North Dakota Approved 12/23/02 211,961 Ow est Utah Approved 12/23/02 1,076,872 Ow est Washington Approved 12/23/02 3,378,958 Ow est Wyoming Approved 12/23/02 261,260 Verizon District of Columbia Approved 3/19/03 919,587 Verizon Maryland Approved 3/19/03 3,932,175 Verizon West Virginia Approved 3/19/03 862,638 SBC Nevada Approved 4/14/03 426,320 Owest New Mexico Approved 4/15/03 854,785 Owest Oregon Approved 4/15/03 1,918,643 Owest South Dakota Approved 4/15/03 257,651 Ow est Minnesota Approved 6/26/03 2,279,543 SBC Michigan Approved 9/17/03 5,910,478 SBC Illinois Approved 10/15/03 7,609,540 SBC Indiana Approved 10/15/03 3,358,983 SBC Ohio Approved 10/15/03 5,133,605 SBC Wisconsin Approved 10/15/03 2,614,546 Ow est Arizona Pending Pending 2,881.752 Notes: Access line data are•.as of December 31, 2001. Hawaii and Alaska are not served by RBDCs. Source: FCC and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 56 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 3. RBOC Access Lines Approved for Long-Distance Service 180 160 140 v;- c: 120 .E (/) 100 Q) c: :.:::; Q) 80 u (/) .0 :::> 60 Cl) 40 20 0 Dec-99 Jun-00 Dec-00 Jun-01 Dec-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Notes: Lines approved represent RBOC access lines in states where RBOCs have received Section 271 authorization. Source: FCC and TeleGeography research Ameritech (which later merged with SBC) filed the first Section 271 application in January 1997, only to have it rejected a few weeks later. The first RBOC to win Section 271 approval in a state was Verizon (then known as BeiiAtlantic). in New York in December 1999. The pace of approvals continued slowly in 2000 and 2001 and accel­ erated in mid-year 2002 (see Figure 3, RBOC Access Lines Approved for Long-Distance Service 1999-2003). By November 2003, the Bells had received authorization to pro­ vide long-distance services in all states but Arizona (see Figure 2. Section 271 Approvals). A number of factors account for the recent wave of approvals. While critics of the RBOCs point to a friendlier management team at the FCC, some fundamental issues have changed as well. The Bell Companies are clearly no longer as invulnerable as they seemed during the telecom boom. The number of phone lines in service-the RBOCs core business-peaked in 2000 and has declined by approximately one percent per quarter during the past 12 months. Moreover, a growing number of the lines in serv­ ice are lower-margin "unbundled" wholesale lines that rival carriers, such as AT&T and MCI are reselling to their own customers. Due to the growing pressure on their traditional business lines, the RBOCs have scram­ bled to find other source of revenues. All four Bells have identified long-distance serv­ ice as a priority growth area, and international long-distance as a lucrative niche within the sector. Now free from regulatory restraints, the Bells have made rapid inroads in © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 RBOCS © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 57 RBOCS Figure 4. BeiiSouth Switched line and long-Distance Revenues 30 25 -;;; c: 20 " " c: :.:::; 15 " .:> .:> -g 10 § (/) Lines in service -Long-distance revenues r- 3/31/99 9/30/99 3/31/00 9/30/00 3/31/01 9/30/01 3/31/02 9/30/02 3/31/03 $450 $400 $350 -;;; c: $300 $250 " " :::> c: " $200 ii; a: " .:> c: $150 ;;; Ci " $100 c: 0 -- $50 $0 9/30/03 Source: BeiiSouth and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 the long-distance market. For example, BeiiSouth s long-distance revenues have grown more then 70 percent in the past 12 months (see Figure 4). and Owests long-distance subscribers more than doubled in the second quarter of 2003. RBOC International Long-Distance Strategies While the RBOCs have been quite public about their international long-distance ambi­ tions, most are reluctant to divulge consistent metrics regarding this business. Consequently, assessing their current market position and their potential impact is dif­ ficult. However, the four local service providers clearly have the potential to capture substantial international service market share. According to FCC data, the four RBOCs accounted for approximately 15 percent of residential long-distance customers at year­ end 2002-compared with almost none in 1999. While theyve been gaining market share rapidly, each company is taking a distinct approach to the long-distance market, and the international market, in particular. Verizon, the largest RBOC, was formed through the 2000 merger of Bell Atlantic with GTE, the largest "independent" (non-RBOC) local-service provider. While Bell Atlantic had been prohibited from competing in the long-distance market, GTE had re-entered this segment in 1996. Verizon was also the first RBOC to receive Section 271 approval in any of its markets, and had aggressively marketed long-distance services to its cus­ tomers. By the third quarter of 2003, Verizon reported nearly 16 million long-distance access lines in service. Verizon uses a combination of direct bilateral routes and whole­ sale carriers for its international traffic. Verizon carried over 135.7 million minutes of int~rnational traffic in 2002. 58 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 5. SBC Switched Lines and Long-Distance Revenues 60 50 -;;; c: ]. 40 " Q) c: :.:::i 30 Q) u u "0 20 § en 10 0 lines in Service -Long-Distance Revenues I !--" "" ,. 3/31/99 9/30/99 3/31/00 9/30/00 3/31/01 9/30/01 3/31/02 9/30/02 3/31/03 9/30/03 $900 $1l00 $700 -;;,- c: $600 " Q) $500 c: Q) Q) a: $400 Q) u c: $300 1)! i5 C> c: $200 0 _, $100 $0 Source: SBC and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 SBC is the second largest RBOC, with just under 55 million local access lines in serv­ ice. SBC received Section 271 authorization in its final four states in October 2003. At the end of the third quarter of 2003, SBC had 11 .5 million long-distance customers, and approximately 1 7 million international long-distance customers. SBC currently sends most of its international traffic via WiiTel and other wholesale carriers. SBC has developed discount plans for calls to Latin America and Canada to serve its customer base in Texas, California, and the Midwest. SBC has also developed calling plans tar­ geted towards the substantial Arab immigrant communities in Detroit and Chicago. After declining steadily over the past three years, SBCs long-distance revenues began to increase sharply in 02 and 03 of 2003 (see Figure 5. SBC Switched Lines and Long­ Distance Revenues). BeiiSouth was the first RBOC to receive Section 271 authorization in all of its states. With Florida as its largest single market, the company has targeted its international long-distance service offerings towards the Latino community. While BeiiSouth sends some Latin American traffic via direct routes, the great majority is sent via wholesale carriers. BeiiSouth reported approximately 16 million minutes of international long-dis­ tance traffic in 2002, all of it resale. The companys long-distance revenues have grown more than 70 percent in the past four quarters (see again Figure 4. BeiiSouth Switched Lines and Long-Distance Revenues), suggesting that international traffic vol­ umes will also increase sharply in 2003. Owest, the ambitious fiber-optic network builder, merged with RBOC US West in 2000. Owest provides an extensive set of wholesale long-distance network services in addi­ tion to its local telecom services. Owest has also provided retail long-distance service on a resale basis outside its local service area. While Owest is still awaiting 271 RBOCS © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 59 RBOCS approval in Arizona, the companys long-distance subscribers have grown rapidly in its other markets. In the second quarter of 2003, Owest added 590,000 retail long-dis­ tance customers, more than doubling its subscriber base. With its origins in the whole­ sale networks business, Owest is developing not just a retail international long-distance business but is also aggressively offering international wholesale voice services. RBOCs International Traffic Volumes Although precise international traffic data are not available for most of the RBOCs, the four Bell companies clearly did not generate much international traffic in 2002 relative to the total U.S. market. Verizon reported 135.7 million minutes of traffic in 2002 most of it originating in Hawaii (where Verizon has a long-distance business predating the 1996 Act) BeiiSouth reported 16 million minutes of traffic, all of it international resale. While SBC did not file an international traffic report with the FCC, the company routes almost all of its international traffic via WiiTel which reported approximately 100 million minutes of outbound international traffic in 2002. FCC data suggest that the RBOCs accounted for slightly more than 15 percent of resi­ dential domestic long-distance subscribers and approximately 10.6 percent of domes­ tic long-distance traffic by year-end 2002. The Bells share of business long-distance subscribers is probably significantly lower than their residential market share, since the RBOCs have, historically, had difficulties serving large corporations due to their inabil­ ity to provide a full array of long-distance services. The RBOCs share of international long-distance service is also likely lower than their share of domestic long-distance services. Price-sensitive high-volume consumers are likely to favor discount carriers, while international businesses, as noted above, have traditionally been a difficult mar­ ket for RBOCs. TeleGeography estimates that the RBOCs originated approximately 1.6 billion minutes of international traffic in 2002, roughly 3 percent of total U.S. international traffic. However, most of this traffic was not carried by the Bells, but delivered by wholesale carriers. Consequently, TeleGeography estimates that international traffic actually car­ ried by the RBOCs was between 300 and 400 million minutes, about one percent of U.S. traffic. Though tiny, this volume is important in its historical context. As recently as mid-year 2002, the states for which RBOCs had received Section 271 authorization accounted for only one-third of the Bell s total access lines. With the exception of some of Verizons former GTE operations, they served no long-distance customers at all prior to 1999. How much of the international long-distance market will the RBOCs ultimately capture? Though exact parallels are hard to find, the experience of fixed-line operators in other countries provides a useful frame of reference. Incumbent fixed-line operators seldom account for less than thirty percent of a country s international voice traffic. Obviously, the situation of incumbents in other countries is not directly comparable, in that other incumbents local and long-distance operations were never legally separated. Also, none of the Bells possess the complete national coverage that their foreign counter­ parts can provide. Nevertheless. the RBOCs rapid market-share gains in the past year suggest they are well on their way to reshaping the U.S. long-distance market. 60 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Carriers CARRIERS 62 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 CARRIERS Competition and Market Shares In 1995, less than half of the worlds international traffic was originated in the 15 coun: tries that had opened their international long-distance markets to competition. By 2002, more than 50 countries, accounting for 90 percent of the worlds international traffic had liberalized their international long-distance markets (see Figure 1. Traffit From Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002) The most dramatic change in the competitive landscape was the European Unions "Big Bang" telecom market liberalization initiative, which opened most of Western Europe to international competition in January 1998 (though a few countries jumped the gun, opening their markets in 1997) Since the dramatic market opening of January 1998, many additional countries have joined the ranks of competitive markets, including Greece, Taiwan, China and, most recently, India. New market entrants used low prices to pry customers away from the former monop­ oly incumbent carriers. Given their lower cost structures and their lack of an estab­ lished customer base, new carriers were able to price their services far more Figure 1. Traffic From Competitive Telecom Markets, 1995-2002 Monopoly Markets • Competitive markets Malaysia 1996 1997 1998 Hong Kong, Most of E.U., Switzerland 1999 Brazil, Singapore 2000 2001 100% China 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2002 Notes: Country labels reflect the time line of market liberalization for select countries. Between 1996 and 2002 a total of 35 countries opened their international telecommunications markets to competition. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 63 CARRIERS Figure 2. New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2002 50 45 40 v; .El ::::J 35 c: .E c: 30 :.0 .) 25 :E " ..= 20 ·E " 15 u s: Q) z 10 5 0 • Totallntl Traffic Minutes of New Carriers ---co- Global Market Share of New Carriers 2.0% 2.5% 6.7% 4.8% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notes: New carrier figure includes only carriers that began facilities-based operation after 1989. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 aggressively than their entrenched rivals Moreover, given that international call costs had traditionally been set well above carriers underlying costs, there was plenty of room for price reductions. Low prices proved an effective market-entry strategy. In most countries, new carriers were able to capture 10 to 20 percent of the market within two years of liberalization Between 1990 and 2002, new international carriers (that is, carriers formed after 1989) grew from a fraction of a percent to 32 percent of the total international long­ distance market (see Figure 2. New Carrier Market Shares, 1990-2002). The Empire Strikes Back Incumbent carriers were initially slow to respond to the low prices offered by their rivals Their large customer base, as well has their relatively higher cost structures (most were privatized former state-owned companies, with large legacy staff) made it difficult to cut prices. However, as their market shares declined precipitously, incum­ bents found themselves with no choice but to cut both prices and costs sharply. Five years into the market era, incumbents prices generally compare favorably with those of their main domestic rivals though they have ceded the most price-sensitive cus­ tomers to deep discount providers. (For example, "Teledump" in Germany offers calls t~ the U.S. for only 2. 1 Euro cents per minute, even during peak business hours­ approximately one-sixth the rate charged by either Deutsche Telekom or Arcor.) 64 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 CARRIERS Figure 3. Market Shares of Incumbents and Key Rivals, 1998-2002 100% 90% 80% (.J 70% :E " .:: -ro 60% c:: 0 ·.;: " E 50% " .... -= 0 40% " ..c:: 30% (I) 20% 10% 0% 1994 1995 1996 Source: TeleGeography research """ , •. ,, • \._ Incumbents , • _ France Telecom , • Swisscom ,, _ _ _ Son era (Finland) -- Telekom Austria Rivals -----------:...._::::::----- Finnet International --/ • Sunrise (Switzerland) Telecom Dev. (France) ------ UTA (Austria) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 © TeleGeography, Inc. 2003 Most incumbents market shares have stabilized in the past two years at 45 to 55 per­ cent of their home countries international long distance market (see Figure 3. Market Shares of Incumbents and Key Rivals, 1998-2002). While new carriers gained market share rapidly in the 1990s, their growth has slowed, and now barely exceeds the pace of the international long-distance market as a whole. Some incumbent carriers, such as AT&T, have even been able to recapture market share lost to rivals in previous years. AT&Ts traffic grew from approximately 12 billion min­ utes in 2001 to 12.7 billion minutes in 2002-approximately 1 billion minutes more than MCI its closes rival. On a worldwide basis, data suggest that MCI was able to retain its position as the largest carrier of international traffic with 18.7 billion minutes of traffic 6 billion of which were originated outside the United States. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 65 CARRIERS 66 Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count~/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Argentina Telef6nica Argentina 54.6 51 .1 54.5 54.1 46.9 Telecom International 45.3 48.9 45.5 45.9 46.3 Others 6.8 Australia Telstra 100.0 98.0 87.0 76.3 73.4 62.0 55.0 49.5 49.5 38.9 39.2 39.0 MCI 6.0 10.0 19.4 Optus 2.0 13.0 21.9 23.4 27.0 26.0 21.9 21 .9 21 .7 18.2 17.9 AAPT 11 .0 13.4 13.6 12.7 13.1 10.6 Te leglobe 4.4 4.4 5.4 5.9 6.0 Primus Telecommunications 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.4 3.7 Others 1.8 3.2 11 .0 5.0 6.8 5.6 9.3 7.2 3.4 Austria Telekom Austria 100.0 79.0 65.3 51.3 45.9 44.3 MCI 1.4 2.6 7.2 12.4 UTA Telekom 6.1 13.8 9.4 9.5 Tele2 5.0 7.1 6.8 7.8 E-Tel 3.9 4.0 COLT 3.7 3.7 Cable & Wireless 3.8 3.5 4.3 2.8 Others 21.0 18.4 21 .6 18.9 15.6 Belgium Belgacom 100.0 87.1 81.0 69.6 63.7 64.7 MCI 9.8 14.4 19.3 COLT 6.4 4.5 Cable & Wireless 2.1 5.9 1.9 Others 13.0 19.0 18.4 9.6 9.6 Brazil EMBRATEL 100.0 100.0 90.7 86.8 66.7 lntelig 9.3 13.2 16.5 Telef6nica Brazil 3.6 Telemar Participa~oes 0.8 Others 12.4 Notes: Data based on outgoing international traffic for the public switched network and International Simple Resale !ISR) covering the full calendar or fiscal year. Some data aggregated in "others· rows include market shares for carriers shown individually in later years. Market shares may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count~/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Canada* Bell Canada 27.4 26.3 25.3 24.4 All stream 1.0 5.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 14.0 19.1 21.1 21 .6 24.0 Teleglobe Canada 29.0 30.0 30.0 31 .0 29.0 33.0 30.0 23.0 26.0 23.8 16.9 16.3 17.4 15.8 Sprint Canada 15.0 21.0 17.0 18.0 19.5 14.1 13.9 13.4 Telus 5.8 8.0 7.6 8.9 Primus Telecommunications 8.7 9.0 8.2 7.4 Stentor 71.0 70.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 54.0 44.0 44.0 41 .0 40.0 Others 4.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 2.6 5.1 6.0 6.1 Chile CTC Mundo 1.0 17.5 31 .2 31.0 22.2 22.8 25.5 26.4 30.6 32.1 31 .0 ENTEL Chile 100.0 80.0 57.5 40.0 40.6 37.3 34.1 33.2 34.8 34.2 32.5 30.5 Chile Sat 20.0 25.0 19.7 19.4 15.2 17.9 13.9 12.8 13.0 13.0 14.3 BeiiSouth Chile 6.6 6.8 10.0 11 .1 10.7 10.0 10.1 9.8 10.6 Globus 9.3 6.8 7.0 7.2 3.4 3.2 3.7 TransAm 1.0 1.0 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0 AT&T Latin America-Chile 1.2 1.0 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.2 Telef6nica del Sur Carrier 0.2 1.8 1.8 Others 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 3.2 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.0 Colombia Telecom Colombia 100.0 88.0 70.5 55.7 47.6 37.2 Orbitel 7.0 15.7 24.3 28.2 34.1 ETB 5.0 13.8 20.1 24.2 28.7 Czech Republic Cesky Telecom 82.2 77.7 52.6 E-Tel 3.3 2.2 Cable & Wireless 4.6 1.2 Others 18.0 14.1 44.0 Denmark Tele Danmark 100.0 92.5 84.4 67.5 55.0 47.2 42.7 39.6 Tele2 Denmark 4.0 6.6 12.4 13.2 13.3 12.1 11.4 Primus Telecommunications 7.8 9.9 SONOFON 7.5 lelia Danmark 3.5 6.3 9.9 10.7 9.1 7.1 6.7 Cable & Wireless 4.7 7.2 2.8 Others 2.7 10.3 21.0 25.7 23.0 21.9 Notes: See page 66. *Canada: The Stentor alliance, which was dissolved in 1999, included Bell Canada, Telus, MTS, SaskTell, and Ali ant. BCE, the parent company of Bell Canada, announced the purchase of Tefeglobe in February 2000. Until October 1998, Teleglobe held a monopoly on all non-U.S. routes. Sprint Canada market shares include Fonorola, which merged with Sprint Canada in 1998. AT&T market shares include ACC traffic prior to 1999 merger. Primus acquired the consumer division of AT&T Canada in May 1999. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica. Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA IN C. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 67 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Counti}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Dominican Republic CODETEL 100.0 90.0 85.8 83.0 77.0 73.8 72.2 78.1 77.4 77.8 73.8 Tricorn 6.7 7.5 12.8 12.9 15.5 14.2 15.5 14.6 14.9 Centennial 7.5 9.5 10.2 13.3 12.3 7.7 7.1 7.6 11.2 Estonia Eli on 80.0 70.0 Tele2 12.9 18.0 Elisa/Radiolinja 6.4 10.0 Others 0.7 1.9 Finland* Sonera 100.0 90.0 72.8 66.0 58.9 54.7 54.0 49.3 47.9 45.5 Finnet International 5.0 19.1 24.2 28.2 28.0 25.7 26.9 26.0 25.0 FinnetCom 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.2 8.0 Song Networks 3.0 7.7 8.8 9.3 12.0 8.6 8.5 6.7 7.1 Others 2.0 0.4 0.9 3.5 5.2 11.6 8.8 12.2 14.5 France France Telecom 100.0 95.0 85.0 67.6 60.4 56.3 Telecom Developpement 8.4 13.3 13.4 13.0 LDCOM 0.1 5.8 7.7 11 .5 MCI 4.0 4.8 6.5 Cable & Wireless 3.0 5.6 3.2 Telia 1.0 2.0 3.1 COLT 2.2 2.0 Primus Telecommunications 2.0 1.9 Others 5.0 6.6 5.3 1.9 2.4 Germany Deutsche Telekom 100.0 80.3 58.0 47.3 48.7 49.7 MCI 10.1 11.7 14.4 COLT 5.2 5.2 5.9 Arc or 3.4 3.3 2.9 4.9 4.4 Telia 1.6 1.5 3.4 Cable & Wireless 4.1 4.8 3.0 Viag lnterkom 1.6 1.5 1.4 Others 16.3 38.7 27.2 21.7 17.8 Greece OTE 100 93.0 90.0 Others 7.0 10.0 Notes: See page 66. ., *Finland: Song Networks acquired lelias fixed-line business in Finland in June 2001 Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 68 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!}/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Hong Kong PCCW Hong Kong Telecom 100.0 90.0 61.3· 39.0 36.4 29.4 City Telecom 16.9 26.3 22.7 New World Telephone 2.1 14.3 14.6 14.9 18.6 MCI 5.8 8.4 8.2 NewT& THong Kong 2.0 9.6 9.1 8.6 7.5 Others 6.0 14.8 14.6 5.4 13.6 Indonesia PT lndosat 100.0 99.5 95.4 88.5 84.8 88.2 86.5 89.2 89.7 89.7 PT Sate Iindo 0.5 4.6 11.5 15.2 11.8 13.5 10.8 10.3 10.3 Ireland Eircom 100.0 91.0 78.0 73.8 75.0 70.3 62.8 MCI 3.0 3.0 6.5 10.6 13.5 16.7 Esat Telecommunications 5.0 8.0 9.9 8.3 10.8 9.9 Others 1.0 11 .0 9.8 6.1 5.4 10.6 Israel Bezeq 100.0 72.5 51.4 45.9 44.2 41.1 40.2 Barak lTC 15.0 24.8 29.9 31.3 33.0 33.5 Golden Lines 12.5 23.7 24.3 24.5 25.9 26.3 Italy* Telecom ltalia 100.0 88.6 73.5 65.0 59.2 55.5 Wind Telecomunicazioni 4.5 9.2 10.8 17.1 18.0 MCI 1.8 2.4 7.6 Albacom 1.1 6.5 8.0 6.7 6.3 Cable & Wireless 6.1 7.4 4.5 COLT 1.9 2.7 Others 5.8 10.8 8.3 5.3 5.4 Japan* KDDI 93.3 88.0 73.3 69.7 66.9 66.3 66.2 63.9 62.7 58.0 51.3 43.6 36.9 36.0 C&W IDC 3.7 6.5 13.3 15.3 16.9 17.3 17.3 18.7 18.4 18.2 17.6 22.8 25.4 24.8 Japan Telecom 3.0 5.5 13.4 15.0 16.2 16.4 16.5 17.5 19.0 18.3 17.5 16.7 14.1 13.8 NIT Communications Corp. 1.2 2.5 5.9 7.6 MCI 5.1 9.2 6.7 4.8 Others 5.5 7.3 5.2 11.1 13.0 Korea, Rep. Korea Telecom 100.0 79.9 74.5 68.7 72.6 73.5 69.0 66.6 59.5 51.9 49.4 52.5 DACOM Corporation 20.1 25.5 31 .3 27.4 26.5 27.0 21 .9 24.7 23.6 26.7 23.1 Onse Telecom 4.0 11.5 15.8 15.3 15.2 15.8 Others 9.1 8.8 8.5 Notes: See page 66. *Italy: Wind and lnfostrada were merged in 2001. *Japan: Japan Telecom market shares include IT J prior to 1997 merger. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 69 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Countn:/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19!16 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Malaysia Telekom Malaysia 100.0 90.0 80.0 77.0 58.5 61.1 54.7 45.8 Maxis Communications 7.6 11 .2 15.9 18.1 17.1 TIME Telekom 4.9 8.7 8.9 8.3 17.0 Celcom 8.0 11 .0 10.0 14.5 9.0 11 .5 10.7 Digi Telecommunications 7.2 5.5 7.4 9.4 Others 2.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mexico Telmex 100.0 83.0 78.1 68.0 64.7 68.0 68.7 Avantel 7.5 8.5 10.0 15.1 14.7 15.0 Alestra 8.5 10.5 13.1 13.1 12.5 12.8 Others 1.0 3.0 8.9 7.1 4.8 3.5 Netherlands PTI Telecom Netherlands (KPN) 100.0 95.0 84.9 68.3 57.8 51.4 47.2 MCI 10.8 9.5 18.7 Primus Telecommunications 3.5 3.0 9.0 Telfort 16.8 19.3 15.4 8.7 COLT 7.2 6.0 Cable & Wireless 2.2 6.7 4.2 Others 5.0 15.1 14.9 6.3 6.7 6.2 New Zealand Telecom New Zealand 100.0 92.0 82.0 80.0 78.4 74.8 78.0 78.2 74.6 77.6 72.5 71.8 71 .4 64.9 TelstraCiear 8.0 18.0 20.0 21.6 25.2 22.0 19.8 20.2 12.5 17.9 15.3 15.0 14.7 Others 2.0 5.2 9.9 9.6 12.9 13.6 20.3 Nigeria Nigerian Telecommunications 100.0 97.0 Others 3.0 Norway Telenor 100.0 92.6 73.2 75.0 72.6 66.2 Tele2 Norge 7.0 7.3 6.9 6.9 Others 7.4 19.8 17.6 20.5 27.0 Notes: See page 66. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 70 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 CARRIERS Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!:_Y/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Philippines* PLOT 100.0 91.6 84.2 69.0 68.0 79.0 73.0 69.0 65.4- 51.8 49.9 46.0 Globe Telecom 2.0 7.0 8.6 16.0 30.6 36.7 41.2 Digitel 2.0 3.0 4.3 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.5 Bayan Tel 1.0 4.0 5.0 5.7 4.6 3.5 2.6 3.1 Eastern Telecommunications 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.4 3.4 4.6 3.8 2.9 Capitol Wireless 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 4.1 3.1 1.5 1.4 Philippine Global Communications 8.4 15.8 23.0 23.0 6.0 3.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 Others 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Portugal Marconi 83.3 76.3 76.7 Cable & Wireless 8.6 12.5 10.0 Jazztel 2.0 1.7 2.0 Others 6.1 9.6 11.3 Singapore Singapore Telecom 100.0 95.0 83.7 74.1 StarHub 4.0 10.4 11 .2 MCI 0.2 2.4 4.5 Others 0.7 3.6 10.2 Spain Telef6nica 100.0 90.5 82.7 82.6 72.2 56.4 Lince 2.1 2.4 3.2 8.2 MCI 0.3 2.4 6.3 Teleglobe 2.2 2.6 2.9 5.9 Retevisi6n 4.5 4.3 3.7 3.5 5.8 Cable & Wireless 3.3 8.6 4.5 BT 1.4 2.3 3.9 Communitel Global 3.8 COLT 2.1 1.8 Others 5.0 8.7 3.7 2.9 3.4 Sweden Telia 100.0 92.0 87.0 76.0 69.0 66.0 61.0 53.1 47.1 43.4 39.3 MCI 13.8 17.0 19.9 Tele2 8.0 13.0 21 .0 22.0 22.0 24.0 18.0 14.5 13.2 10.9 Telenordia 7.0 4.8 4.4 5.7 COLT 2.0 4.0 Cable & Wireless 0.4 6.2 2.3 Others 3.0 9.0 12.0 14.0 28.9 19.4 13.8 17.9 Notes: See page 66. *Philippines: PLOT market shares include Smart Communications traffic prior to 1999 acquisition. Globe Telecom market shares include lslacom traffic prior to 2001 merger. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 71 CARRIERS Market Shares of International Carriers Percentage of Outgoing Minutes Count!]/Carrier 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Switzerland* Swisscom 100.0 93.1 77.6 58.7 54.4 55.4 Sunrise 3.7 6.6 25.3 21 .8 19.3 MCI 7.4 5.7 9.4 COLT 4.3 5.6 Cable & Wireless 5.3 6.4 2.8 Others 3.0 22.4 3.3 7.4 7.4 Taiwan Chunghwa Telecom 100.0 100.0 91.2 80.6 64.6 Others 8.8 19.4 35.4 United Kingdom* BT 91.0 86.0 81.0 76.8 74.2 68.6 67.7 60.0 54.9 51.7 39.7 37.2 30.4 27.9 Cable & Wireless 9.0 14.0 19.0 23.2 24.0 28.1 25.8 26.8 30.3 32.2 31 .3 28.5 22.3 23.8 MCI 6.6 5.1 5.2 10.0 11 .8 12.5 14.5 Primus 3.5 5.0 5.8 Teleglobe 4.2 4.8 5.6 4.1 5.2 COLT 3.7 4.7 Energis Carrier Services 4.2 3.6 3.4 Telia 2.0 2.5 2.7 Others 1.8 3.3 6.5 6.6 9.7 7.0 14.2 7.2 15.9 12.0 United States* AT&T Corp. 83.3 78.4 74.8 70.3 62.2 60.1 54.3 50.2 44.7 42.9 36.8 25.7 30.9 31.7 MCI 10.2 14.6 17.8 21.2 25.4 28.6 32.0 32.9 31.2 28.6 28.3 33.0 29.5 29.1 Sprint 5.8 6.4 6.3 7.3 10.3 11 .1 11.3 13.2 12.0 11.6 12.7 10.4 13.9 11.8 lOT Corporation 0.5 4.4 5.5 9.0 Teleglobe USA 1.3 3.3 4.9 4.0 3.8 4.2 Cable & Wireless 0.9 2.3 2.7 Primus 0.3 0.5 3.0 2.9 2.1 2.5 TRICOM USA 1.0 1.6 2.2 Telecom New Zealand 1.9 Telia USA 0.9 1.4 1.1 Others 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.1 0.2 2.4 3.7 10.5 13.1 14.7 16.8 9.0 3.8 Notes: See page 66. *Switzerland: Sunrise shares include diAx traffic prior to November 2000 merger. *United Kingdom: Figures for Cable & Wireless reflect data for Mercury prior to its April1997 merger with Bell Cablemedia, Videotron, and NYNEX CableComms. *United States: Market shares for U.S. carriers prior to 1993 exclude traffic to Canada and Mexico. MCI market shares prior to 1998 merger aggregate MCI and World Com traffic. World Access filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations in the first half of 2001. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 72 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 CARRIERS Top 40 International Carriers Outgoing Traffic 2002 Revenue (millions of minutes) (US$ billions) Rank Company Origin Country 2002 2001 Change 01-02 Total lntl Service 1 AT&T Corp. United States 12,796.5 12,006.8 6.6% $37.8 $4.5 2 MCI United States 11 ,750.2 11,454.7 2.6% n.a. $1.1 3 Deutsche Telekom (b) Germany 5,275.0 n.a. n.a. $50.8 n.a. 4 Sprint United States 4,774.3 5,384.4 -11.3% $26.6 $0.5 5 France Telecom France 4,603.0 4,592.0 0.2% $44.1 n.a. 6 BT(a) United Kingdom 4,058.5 4,233.5 -4.1% $29.0 n.a. 7 lOT Corporation (b) United States 3,644.5 n.a. n.a. $1.5 n.a. 8 Cable & Wireless (a) United Kingdom 3,459.2 3,113.8 11.1% $6.6 n.a. 9 Telecom ltalia Italy 3,405.1 3,042.0 11 .9% $28.8 n.a. 10 Telef6nica Spain 2,518.2 3,084.8 -18.4% $27.6 $1.2 11 MCI United Kingdom 2,103.0 1.747.4 20.4% n.a. n.a. 12 Bell Canada (b) Canada 2,000.0 n.a. n.a. $12.6 n.a. 13 All stream Canada 1,960.7 1.711 .4 14.6% $0.9 n.a. 14 Swisscom Switzerland 1,937.0 1.757.0 10.2% $9.4 $0.1 15 Saudi Telecom Saudi Arabia 1,916.3 1,516.6 26.4% n.a. n.a. 16 Etisalat United Arab Emirates 1,893.6 1,395.9 35.7% $2.2 n.a. 17 Teleglobe USA United States 1,677.9 1,458.1 15.1% n.a. n.a. 18 PTI Telecom (KPN) Netherlands 1,662.9 1,695.0 -1.9% $12.1 $0.4 19 MCI Germany 1,533.0 1,209.1 26.8% n.a. n.a. 20 Belgacom Belgium 1,530.7 1,372.2 11 .6% $4.9 $0.5 21 Singapore Telecom (a) Singapore 1,456.0 1,565.0 -7.0% $5.8 $0.5 22 Telmex Mexico 1,371.9 1,386.4 -1.0% $11.7 $1.0 23 Chunghwa Telecom Taiwan 1,368.0 1,227.2 11 .5% $5.1 $0.1 24 China Telecom China 1,325.0 n.a. n.a. $9.2 $0.1 25 Teleglobe Canada Canada 1,289.3 1,376.7 -6.4% n.a. n.a. 26 Rostelecom Russia 1,219.2 1,081.6 12.7% $0.8 $0.3 27 Telstra (a) Austra lia 1,200.0 1,188.0 1.0% $12.0 $0.2 28 PCCW Hong Kong Telecom Hong Kong 1,169.0 1,270.0 -8.0% $2.6 $0.5 29 Sprint Canada (b) Canada 1,100.0 n.a. n.a. $0.5 n.a. 30 Cable & Wireless United States 1,092.1 910.1 20.0% $6.6 n.a. 31 Telecom Developpement France 1,058.4 1,021 .5 3.6% n.a. n.a. 32 Primus Telecommunications United States 1,008.6 832.0 21.2% $1.0 $0.1 33 Wind Telecomunicazioni Italy 987.0 880.0 12.2% $3.7 n.a. 34 KDDI (a)(b) Japan 950.0 n.a. n.a. $22.9 n.a. 35 LDCOM France 940.0 585.8 60.5% $0.5 n.a 36 City Telecom Hong Kong 905.0 916.0 -1.2% $0.1 n.a. 37 OTE Greece 897.9 825.1 8.8% $4.1 $0.3 38 TRICOM USA United States 876.9 603.4 45.3% $0.3 $0.0 39 Eircom (a) Ireland 876.6 973.3 -9.9% $3.0 $0.1 40 Primus Telecommunications UK United Kingdom 837.1 700.0 19.6% $1 .0 n.a. Notes: Traffic figures are for public switched telephone network (PSTN) circuits and International Simple Resale only (service resale is excluded). Carrier rankings based on originating country minutes only; when based on the aggregated traffic of all subsidiaries, the top multinational carriers include: AT&T, BT, MCI, Cable & Wireless, Teleglobe, and Primus. International service revenues generally reflect net of PSTN service revenues after adding or subtracting for settlement payments but may also include some private line revenue. All revenue figures converted from original currency at conversion rate current to year end reported. a. Data are for the fiscal year ending March 31 2003. Telstras fiscal year ends June 30, 2003. b. Traffic data for 2002 are estimates. Source: TeleGeography research, FCC, and company reports. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PR I METR I CA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 73 CARRIERS 74 Traffic Base of Selected Multinational Carriers 20.0 -;;; 15.0 c:: e " s 10.0 = c:: ·c; E :::1 0 5.0 18.7 12.8 a>E -o C::u e~ u.." I- " :::1 .5 a: ..c:: " a: t­ o • Rest of World • Home Market Notes: AT&T data include U.S.·originated traffic only. Reach home market includes Australia and Hong Kong; TeliaSonera home market includes Sweden and Roland. Some Cable & Wireless data are estimated. ITXC and iBasis traffic are VoiP. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Market Shares of U.S. International Carriers 40.0 35.0 -;;; c:: 30.0 e " 25.0 s :::1 c:: 20.0 = c:: 15.0 ·c; E :::1 0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1990 1991 1992 Carrier Share of Outgoing Traffic, 1990-2002 • Others • Sprint I!I MCI •AT&T 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notes: Traffic figures are for. public switched network circuits based on billing point of call, not originating point. International Simple Resale (ISR) is included in facilities-based totals. Source: TeleGeography research and FCC carrier filings © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Price & Revenue PRICE & REVENUE 76 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 I Overview of International Call Price and Revenue Trends Since reaching a record high of $72 billion in 2000, global revenues from international calls will have slipped to barely $50 billion by year-end 2003. This article examines the turbulent-and often countervailing-trends underlying this revenue slump. While· revenue erosion on outgoing international calls has been a near-universal experience for carriers across the globe, carriers net revenues-outgoing revenues minus settle­ ment payments made to other carriers-have shown mixed results. For some carriers, net revenues have actually increased due to falling settlement payments. The analysis also examines how carriers must contend with increasing market complexity-the num­ ber of separately-priced international routes has proliferated, and prices for many of these routes remain volatile. Finally, the analysis concludes with a review of several emerging trends suggesting that the international call revenue erosion may soon slow. The Revenue Retreat The biggest story in the international services market remains the revenue decline. The market for international voice communications saw its peak in 2000, when global rev­ enues exceeded $70 billion Since then, global call traffic has continued to expand; however, plunging call prices have neutralized volume gains. Between 1999 and year­ end 2003, TeleGeography estimates that average annual price decreases of 17.2 per­ cent will have undermined annual call volume increases of 11 .9 percent, with net revenue growth spiraling downward by an annual average of 7.3 percent globally (see Figure 1. Global Retail Revenues from International Calls, 1999-2003). Figure 1. Global Retail Revenues from International Calls, 1999-2003 $80.0 ""2 .0 $70.0 "" (I) 2 ,i!1 $60.0 Ctl t..) "iii $50.0 c: .S? .., E $40.0 .2l c: c: 0 $30.0 " " ::::> c: " $20.0 " a: "iii $10.0 .0 ..!;? C!l $0.0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Notes: Data measure retail revenues on outgoing international calls; totals do not include revenue from wholesale car­ riers or incoming international traffic termination. Data for 2003 are projections. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 77 PRICE & REVENUE 78 Figure 2. U.S. Carrier Revenues and Settlement Outpayments, 1980-2002 $2.00 $12 $10 c ..c U) 2 $1.50 2l (I) $8 Ql :::> c: Ql Ql 0: $6 co u :::> c: Q; c. Ql :::> $1 .00 c: Revenue per Minute Ql 0> c: Ql 0: ·c; B $4 :::> 0 c:r.i -o 2 co ::i Settlement " $0.50 Outpayments :::> $2 c: c: ( $0.00 ~,__ _________________________ ....J $0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Notes: Data are for PSTN traffic only. Data exclude calls to Canada and Mexico. Net revenues reflect revenues retained by U.S. carriers on out· going calls after settlement payments to foreign carriers. Source: FCC carrier filings and Telegeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Beginning in the 1990s, fierce competition in many countries forced international car­ riers to slash prices to near-cost levels. As carriers costs have subsequently fallen so too have their prices. Costs have declined largely as a result of lower termination pay­ ments-the per-minute fees a carrier must pay to connect each call to its final desti­ nation. Settlement rates and other termination fees have fallen significantly in the last ten years as a result of three factors: TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 1. Unilateral regulatory action by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively placed price ceilings on settlement rates with the U.S. Beginning in 1997, new FCC rules requi red U.S. carriers to negotiate settlement fees ranging from $0.15 to $0 .23 per minute­ much lower than many of the prevailing rates of the time. 2. New technologies such as Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoiP) enabled carriers to evade settlement payments by routing traffic around foreign PTTs for termination directly into the local network. The threat of illicit bypass motivated monopoly telcos in many countries to lower their set­ tlement price. 3. The spread of competition for public switched service increasingly enabled carriers to directly interconnect with thei r foreign counterparts. Direct interconnect charges are usually the same fees that domestic long © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982-2002 $1.60 60% $1.40 $1.20 !!l ::> c: $1.00 Revenue per Minute 50% c: " E >- " B- 40% ::> 0 -c: " " E Cl. $0.80 " 30% " E ::> " c: (I) " $0.60 " c: Margin (Net of Settlement Outpayments) -0 20% -Ql $0.40 c: -~ $0.20 10% " $0.00 0% 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Notes: Revenue per minute indicates average revenue per minute on outgoing international calls from the U.S. Calls to Canada and Mexico are excluded. Source: FCC carrier filings and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 distance operators pay to send traffic onto local networks, generally falling in the range of $0.01 to $0.04 per minute-far lower than tradi­ tional settlement rates. Fortunately for many international carriers, profits have fared much better than rev­ enues. While the prices carriers charge customers have dropped precipitously, so have the termination fees paid to overseas carriers. As a result, relative margins (per­ minute revenues net of settlement payments) have crept upward for many carriers. For example, multinational carrier Primus has registered an increase in net margin in every quarter since year-end 1998. In 2002, U.S. carriers enjoyed their fattest margins, on average, in twenty years (see Figure 3. U.S. Carrier International Call Prices and Margins, 1982-2002). Though many carriers have benefitted from falling termination payments, others have suffered. The dramatic settlement rate decreases have damaged carriers receiving more international traffic than they send. VSNL, Indias incumbent international car­ rier, terminates approximately five times as many minutes than it originates. This net traffic surplus has yielded large settlement payment incomes. In fact, VSNLs net set­ tlement surplus with the United States is so large that the carrier lists AT&T and MCI among its five largest "customers." In recent years, VSNLs revenues have plunged in lock-step with its U.S. carrier settlement rate (see Figure 4. VSNL Settlement Rates and Revenues from Incoming Traffic). As with VSNL, carriers in developing countries, his­ torical beneficiaries of large traffic surpluses, face double revenue difficulties as domes­ tic prices on outgoing traffic plunge and overseas settlement payments from incoming traffic dissolve. PRICE & REVENUE © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 79 PRICE & REVENUE Figure 4. VSNL Settlement Rates and Revenues from Incoming Traffic V> $1 ,200 Revenues $0.70 c: $0.60 s ::J c: .E .E $1,000 $0.50 " 0. 0 "0 cr.i $800 ::::) $0.40 0 "0 cr.i ::::) u :E " $600 $0.30 " C: -c: $0.20 " E " "E " $0.10 Cl) cr.i ::::) Cl c: .E 0 u $400 .E E " $200 ::J c: " " C: $0 $0.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: VSNL financial reports and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Sizing the Market: Gross versus Net Revenue International call revenue collected from end users totaled $53.3 billion in 2002. In recent years, wholesale carriers-intermediaries that bridge carriers generating inter­ national calls and the foreign telcos terminating them-have complicated the revenue picture. TeleGeography has launched research to determine how much of total inter­ national PSTN traffic travels via wholesale carriers and at what prices. TeleGeography has found that international wholesale carriers handled approximately 53 billion min­ utes of calls accounting for roughly $5.4 billion in revenues (see "Overview of International Traffic Trends" on pages 17 to 28). The $5.4 billion wholesale revenue total is net of payments to other wholesale carriers. However, it is not uncommon for a single call to traverse three, four, or even five dif­ ferent carriers networks before arriving at its destination, with each carrier booking revenue from the call. Although we estimate total wholesale carrier revenue net of pay­ ments to other wholesale carriers to equal $5.4 billion, the actual wholesale carrier industry total may be closer to $10 to 15 billion each year. Settlement payments and other interconnect charges collected by domestic carriers to complete international calls account for an additional estimated $30 to 35 billion per year. Termination pay­ ments, when combined with wholesale carrier revenues, accounted for over $40 billion in inter-carrier payments in 2002. Thus, while we estimate net revenues at $53.3 bil­ lion, gross international carrier revenues easily exceeded $90 billion. Market Complexity As carriers wage their struggle to stem revenue erosion they must also contend with in~reasingly complex market choices. 80 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Figure 5. Variance of International Wholesale Prices over Time M 1.2 0 0 N Q; .0 1.0 E - 0 .c 0.8 " ,; Q) - 0.6 -0 c:: 0 0.4 ·.;::; " ·:;; Q) 0 1: 0.2 " -o c " ci) 0.0 Africa Asia & Pacific Europe L. America & U.S. & Canada Caribbean Notes Data show the regional averages for month-to-month standard deviation on average wholesale rates from the Arbinet minutes exchange. Standard deviation is a metric of historical variance. In this data set. higher standard devi­ ation equates to higher variance over time (i.e., price volatility). Source: AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Disintegration of the "One Country, One Rate" System In previous years, when the international settlement regime held sway, determining interconnection costs was relatively straightforward. A carrier would negotiate a sin­ gle, per-minute settlement rate with carriers in each country to which it sent traffic. Whether the call traveled to the most densely wired megalopolis or to the most remote hamlet was irrelevant; with few exceptions, the settlement rate was the same to all des­ tinations within a country. Monopoly ownership of most network elements within a country allowed for the simple rate structure. 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 carri­ ers to own network elements within their home markets. Thus, a British carrier can build an international network from London to Frankfurt and add on a domestic link from Frankfurt to Munich However, unless foreign carriers also own the local cell tow­ ers or last-mile copper needed to complete a call, they must eventually hand off to some other carrier. For that service, the terminating carrier charges an interconnect fee. Interconnect fees tend to vary by distance: fees covering calls terminating within a major city are at the low end of most rate structures; termination fees that include long­ distance transport within the destination country are more expensive. In many coun­ tries, the type of operator completing a call also plays an important role in determining interconnect fees. In Europe, termination rates to mobile phones are sometimes eleven times higher than fees to fixed networks. International wholesale carriers typically pass PRICE & REVENUE © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 81 PRICE & REVENUE 82 Figure 6. International Wholesale Prices to Europe: Mobile versus Fixed 20.0 18.0 16.0 .. 14.0 (I) -+- Netherlands 2 12.0 s c: 10.0 Mobile -.- Italy Destinations -o- Germany Q; c. 8.0 Q) -X- France .> 6.0 -o- United Kingdom 4.0 2.0 0.0 ~~~-l:l--fl-----fl-e~ ]- Fixed ,__ _ _..... _ __. __ ....__...._ __ ...___...._ _ _.._ _ ___.. Destmat1ons Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Dct 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Notes: Data measure average international wholesale prices from the Arbinet minutes exchange. Source: AXCESSRAJESM by Arbinet-thexchange © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 these fees onto their customers. Consequently, international wholesale prices typically fall into three groupings: calls to cities are among the cheapest, calls to fixed-line tele­ phones in other parts of a country are in the middle, and (in those countries with high mobile interconnect fees) calls to wireless phones are the most expensive. Operators that do not tailor their prices to their termination costs run the danger of losing substantial sums. As a hypothetical example, an operator may offer a single, blended rate of $0.25 per minute to a country where the incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LEC) charges a $0.05 termination fee and the mobile operator charges a $0.35 fee. When dealing with most customers (such as residential end-users). this blended rate makes perfect sense for the international carrier: only a small proportion of traffic will flow to the mobile operator. When dealing with other carriers, however, this blended rate is an invitation to disaster. By examining calling codes, savvy tele­ com service providers can identify their calls destined for the mobile operator; and route this traffic and only this traffic via the carrier offering blended rates. The blended rate, which made sense when dealing with retail customers, now costs the wholesale carrier $0.10 ($0.35 minus $0.25) per minute. Further complicating rate plans, country destinations rarely comprise as simple a struc­ ture as a single interconnect fee for fixed carriers and a second interconnect fee for mobile carriers. Many countries have licensed multiple LECs and multiple mobile oper­ ators-each with its own termination fee. As a result, some international wholesale oP.,erators now charge a separate price for each major domestic operator to which they terminate traffic. For example, the October 2003 average wholesale price (as pro- TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Figure 7. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Service, 2001-2002 Total Receipts (US$ millions) Average Revenue per, Minute (US$/minute) Billed Settlement Retained Settlement Net Billed Settlement Retained Sett. Revenue Outpayment Revenue In payment Revenue Revenue Outpayment Revenue In 2001 AT&T 5,749.2 1.466.1 4,283.1 273.9 4,556.9 0.48 0.12 0.36 0.06 MCI 2,875.8 1,778.9 1,096.9 557.9 1,654.9 0.25 0.16 0.10 0.10 Sprint 1,370.7 778.1 592.6 172.3 764.9 0.25 0.14 0.11 0.07 Top 3 Total 9,995.7 4,023.1 5,972.6 1.1104.1 6,976.7 0.35 0.14 011 0.08 2002 AT&T 5.473.3 1,241 .6 4,231.8 297.5 4,529.2 0.43 0.10 0.33 0.06 MCI 2,135.2 1,300.0 835.2 275.6 1,110.8 0.18 0.11 0.07 0.05 Sprint 1,187.8 803.7 384.1 118.3 502.4 0.25 0.17 0.08 0.05 Top 3 Total 8,796.4 3,345.3 5.451.1 691.4 6,142.4 0.30 0.11 0.19 0.05 Change 2001-2002 AT&T -5% -15% -1% 9% -1% -11% -21% -7% -9% MCI -26% -27% -24% -51% -33% -28% -29% -26% -47% Sprint -13% 3% -35% -31 % -34% -2% 17% -27% -31% Top 3 Total -12% -17% -9% -31% -12% -13% -18% -10% -33% Notes: This table breaks down international voice service revenue for the three largest U.S. international carriers. In 2002, for example, AT&T col- lected $5.5 billion from customers for U.S. international outgoing calls and paid foreign carriers $1.2 billion to terminate those calls. Thus, the com- pany gained $4.2 billion by carrying U.S. outgoing calls. Because FCC regulations generally entitled each U.S. carrier to terminate incoming calls based on the percentage of U.S. outgoing traffic it originates, AT&T also collected a significant sum ($298 million) on foreign settlement inpayments, netting $4.5 billion on international voice service. Source: FCC carrier filings and TeleGeography research cured via Arbinets minutes exchange) for a one-minute call to an individual in the U.K. on Vodaphones network was 2.8¢ per minute via Arbinet, while a call to an Orange mobile subscriber cost 6.2¢. As the number of mobile operator and LEC licensees proliferates within a country, so too does the number of separately priced international routes to that country. For example, international minutes to Germany sold on wholesale markets have striated into sixteen distinct routes: four routes to T-Mobile and its three largest mobile com­ petitors, eleven separate routes to Frankfurt, Berlin, and nine other German cities, and one route covering other fixed-line destinations in the country. Where once a carrier could cover the entire world via settlement arrangements with at most, 150 carriers, there are now nearly 700 separately priced international routes. Route Prices and Volatility Although average rates have tracked generally downward in recent years, large price gaps still separate many types of routes. For routes to countries where mobile opera­ tors have maintained high termination rates, calls to wireless phones are expensive. The differences are particularly dramatic in Europe, where international wholesale rates © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 83 PRICE & REVENUE Figure 8. PSTN versus VoiP Revenue per Minute, 1999-2002 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 !l PSTN Revenue per Minute ::::> $0.50 c: Q; $0.40 c. I Q) ::::> c: Q) $0.30 Q) cr: Blended Revenue per Minute VoiP Revenue per Minute $0.20 I $0.10 $0.00 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notes: Data reflect average retail revenue per minute from outgoing international calls. The data do not factor in wholesale revenues. While average VoiP revenue per minute temporarily peaked in 2001 due to increased traffic to higher-priced destinations, VoiP prices to most destinations have consistently declined since 1999. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 to mobiles are four times more expensive than calls to fixed. In some countries, the differences are even starker. Calls to German mobiles averaged 16.1¢ in October 2003, compared to just 1.2¢ for calls to fixed-line phones. Rates to developing coun­ tries whose incumbent operators maintain high settlement rates are also relatively costly. For example, wholesale rates to major African cities averaged 15.2¢ per minute in October 2003, compared to 3.3¢ per minute for European cities (see "Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000-2003" on page 95). The most expensive international routes typically attract the most innovative market activity on the part of suppliers. As a result, these routes tend to feature the most price volatility. Dramatic price swings 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 disguising incoming international calls as local traffic. Over time, local authorities spot these gray market links and shut them down. With the average lifespan of an illicit bypass link measured in months if not weeks, wholesale rates to such countries are unstable. When authorities step in, an international route available at bargain basement prices one day may not work the n~xt, forcing international carriers to shift their traffic back to "official"-and relatively costly-links. 84 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Figure 9. U.S. Call Revenues by Destination U.S. Outgoing Call Revenue by Region, 1997-2002 U.S. Outgoing Call Revenue by Country, 1997-2002 • 2002 1 I, 1997 $1.50 I I $1.50 • 1997 •2002 s $1.25 s $1.25 ::I c ::I c Q; $1.00 Q; $1.00 c. ., c. ::I ., c $0.75 ::I $0.75 ., c ., ., a: ., ., $0.50 a: $0.50 Ol ., ctl Ol Q; ctl $0.25 Q; $0.25 { { $0.00 $0.00 ctl ctl ctl ctl ci c ., ., ctl " - ·~ ·;;; - ctl c. c. ctl ·c: ·;::: { ·;::: ., e e w ctl ., ., :d: .0 ::I ::I ., E E "0 .0 - ""§ ·;::: w w "0 c: { { ctl c c "0 0 c £ u u 2i 2i 0 :s: ::I o1j " " 0 z ctl ., CJ) w Note: Charts show average revenue on U.S. international outgoing calls for the three largest U.S. carriers (AT&T, MCI, and Sprint). Source: FCC carrier filings and TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Trends in wholesale prices to many mobile destinations appear strikingly similar to the price volatility for calls to gray market countries. As with calls bypassing an interna­ tional telcos 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 cellular operator. Thus, while average prices to mobiles often remain far higher than to fixed line destinations, they also fluctuate actively (see Figure 5. Variance of International Wholesale Prices over Time and Figure 6. International Wholesale Prices to Europe: Mobile versus Fixed]. Outlook for Revenues For the many carriers that have watched revenues erode for several consecutive years, the central question is when steep price declines will end. Results from the year 2002 failed to offer a clear answer. MCI, in the throes of bankruptcy, slashed prices by an average of 26 percent between 2001 and 2002 (see Figure 7. U.S. Carrier Revenues for International Voice Service, 2001-2002). In contrast, many carriers appear to have reached the bottom of the deflationary cycle-at least for now. Average international revenue per minute for the U.S. carrier Sprint barely declined (2 percent]-Sprints smallest price decrease since 1998. Telecom New Zealand managed to raise prices by an average of one percent between its 2002 and 2003 fiscal years. The "Retail Pricing Trends, 2000-2003" figure on page 99 illustrates how retail price declines have slowed. The unweighted average list price of the 43 routes presented in the figure fell by 17 percent between 2000 and 2001, by 20 percent in 2001-2002, and by only 5 percent in 2002-2003. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 85 PRICE & REVENUE Figure 10. U.S. Call Prices to Canada and Philippines, 1997-2002 $1.20 c: .g $1.00 " c: ·.;::; " Ql C) $0.80 B Ql :::J c: Ql $0.60 Ql a: -o Philippines $0.40 iii Ql Cl " Q; $0.20 { Canada $0.00 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notes: Data reflect average billed revenues on outgoing calls from the U.S. carried by AT&T, MCI, and Sprint Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Negligible VoiP Substitution Effect By pressuring incumbent PTTs to lower their settlement rates, VoiP has had an indirect yet notable impact on international call costs and prices. Between 1999 and 2003, U.S. carriers settlement rates with India fell from $0.64 to $0.23 per minute; rates to Saudi Arabia plunged from $0.68 to $0. 14. These settlement rate reductions have fil­ tered through the system, resulting in call price decreases. However, one encouraging sign for international carriers is that the dreaded VoiP sub­ stitution effect has not yet materialized. Worries about VoiPs impact on revenues have centered on the substitution of relatively low-priced VoiP services for higher priced PSTN calls. Indeed, the global average retail price for an international call car­ ried on the PSTN was $0.34 per minute in 2001, compared to an estimated $0.12 per minute for international VoiP traffic. For now, however, fears of a substitution effect appear misplaced; international VoiP traffic remains too small relative to total interna­ tional traffic. VoiP call volumes accounted for only eleven percent of international traf­ fic in 2002. TeleGeographys estimates suggest that the "substitution effect" dragged down blended (PSTN plus VoiP) international service revenue per minute by just two cents in 2002 (see Figure 8. PSTN versus VoiP Revenue per Minute, 1999-2002). Regional Price Differences Flattening Another recent trend suggests that differences among prices to different world regions are beginning to disappear: A few years ago, calls among North American and European countries were dramatically cheaper than calls to developing countries. For e~ample, a call to the Philippines from the U.S. cost, on average, three times more than 86 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 a call to Canada in 1997 (see Figure 9. U.S. Call Revenues by Destination and Figure 10. U.S. Call Prices to Canada and Philippines, 1997-2002). By 2002, that margin had shriveled to 50 percent. Why are regional price differences beginning to flatten? In part, the downward trend in prices to developing markets reflects the spread of competition to countries outside Western Europe and North America-telecom market liberalization typically has resulted in a transition from high settlement rates demanded by a single monopoly tO" lower interconnect fees offered by multiple operators. The price declines have also taken effect due to new technologies (especially VoiP) allowing gray market rerouting around incumbents in countries with high settlement rates. Rather than risk potentially forfeiting all incoming traffic, several incumbent telcos have slashed their settlement rates when faced with gray market bypass threats. The cross-regional price equalization also reflects the fact that some "mature" routes to long-liberalized countries have much less scope for further price declines. In the future, routes currently featuring rapidly falling prices will likely also mature as carrier costs to those countries reach a new floor. Consequently, downward price pressure should ease. After a few years of continued downward pricing trends, global call price declines appear likely to decelerate from double-digit to single-digit annual decreases. When combined with continued traffic growth, an end to the call-price freefall could stabilize international call revenue or even send them inching upward. PRICE & REVENUE © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 87 PRICE & REVENUE 88 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Elements of an International Call An international service provider has a number of options to send its customers calls abroad. Excluding call-back, refile, and other forms of non-traditional traffic switching, a U.S. carrier could choose from the three following methods for transporting a cus­ tomers call to its destination in Germany. - 1. Settlement Rate Regime. To switch the call from the customers 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. 7¢ per minute. The carrier shifts the call onto the inter­ national its own "half circuit," 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. carriers marginal cost of using its own backhaul and international circuit is relatively insignificant: 0. 1 ¢ per minute. The set­ tlement rate, at 10.5¢ per minute, is far more expensive. Total cost: 11.2¢ per minute. With a U.S.-to-Germany retail call price of 16¢ per minute, this method would generate a profit of 4.8¢ per minute. 2. Direct Interconnection. Competition rules in Germany permit foreign car­ riers to interconnect directly with the domestic telephone network. Rather than leasing a half circuit and paying a settlement fee, a U.S. carrier can lease a whole circuit all the way to an international gateway in Germany, and then pay the German carrier a 2.2¢ per minute fee to switch the call to Berlin. Total cost, including origination, backhaul, private line lease, and interconnection in Germany: 2.9¢ per minute. 3. Service Resale. A telephone service provider may wish to avoid carrying its own traffic to Germany altogether by purchasing the minutes transported over another carriers network in bulk and marketing those minutes 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 carriers international transport and termination charges. Thanks to spe­ cial interconnect arrangements with terminating carriers, some wholesalers can offer a wholesale price that is lower than the official termination rate. Total cost: 1.6¢ 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 (SG&A) costs, which can form a significant portion of actual carrier expenses. PRICE & REVENUE © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 89 PRICE & REVENUE International Carrier Call Costs from the U.S. Per Minute Cost (U.S. cents), October 2003 Origination Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Retail Price/ Cost lntl Circuit Rate Rate Rate Cost Profit (Loss) Americas U.S.-Canada (Toronto) 7.0 Settlement 0.7 0.1 10.0 10.7 (3.7) Interconnect 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.9 6.1 Wholesale for resellers 0.7 0.7 6.3 U.S.-Mexico (Mexico City) 16.0 Settlement 0.7 0.6 9.5 10.8 5.2 Interconnect n.a. n.a Wholesale for resellers 1.5 1.5 14.5 Europe U.S.-Germany 16.0 Settlement 0.7 0.1 10.5 11.2 4.8 Interconnect 0.7 0.1 2.2 2.9 13.1 Wholesale for resellers 1.2 1.6 14.4 U.S.-U.K. 10.0 Settlement 0.7 0.1 11 .0 11.7 (1.7) Interconnect 0.7 0.1 1.9 2.6 7.4 Wholesale for resellers 1.0 1.0 9.0 Asia U.S.-Australia 16.0 Settlement 0.7 1.3 11.0 13.0 3.0 Interconnect 0.7 1.3 2.9 4.8 11 .2 Wholesale for resellers 1.4 1.4 14.6 U.S .-Hong Kong 17.0 Settlement 0.7 1.0 7.0 8.7 8.3 Interconnect 0.7 1.0 1.6 3.3 13.7 Wholesale for resellers 1.0 1.0 16.1 U.S.-India 43.0 Settlement 0.7 4.4 23.0 28.1 14.9 Interconnect 0.7 4.4 14.6 19.7 23.3 Wholesale for resellers 9.3 9.3 33.7 U.S.-Japan 14.0 Settlement 0.7 0.5 14.5 15.7 (1.7) Interconnect 0.7 0.5 1.7 2.8 11.2 Wholesale for resellers 1.8 1.8 12.2 Notes: See following page. Source: TeleGeography research; AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange; FCC carrier filings © PriMetrica, Inc .. 2003 90 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE International Carrier Call Costs to the U.S. Per Minute Cost {U.S. cents), October 2003 Origination Settlement Interconnect Wholesale Total Retail Price/ Cost lntl Circuit Rate Rate Rate Cost Profit {Loss) Americas Canada -U.S. 7.7 Settlement 0.2 0.1 10.0 10.3 {2.6) Interconnect 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 6.8 Mexico-U.S. 40.7 Settlement 1.0 0.6 9.5 11.1 29.6 Interconnect n.a. n.a Europe Germany-U.S. 5.3 Settlement 2.2 0.1 10.5 12.8 {7.4) Interconnect 2.2 0.1 0.7 2.9 2.4 U.K.-U.S. 22.3 Settlement 1.9 0.1 11 .0 13.0 9.4 Interconnect 1.9 0.1 0.7 2.6 19.7 Asia Australia-U.S. 22.0 Settlement 2.9 1.3 11.0 15.2 6.8 Interconnect 2.9 1.3 0.7 4.8 17.2 Hong Kong-U.S. 38.7 Settlement 1.6 1.0 7.0 9.7 29.0 Interconnect 1.6 1.0 0.7 3.3 35.4 India -U.S. 56.0 Settlement 14.6 4.4 23.0 42.0 14.0 Interconnect 14.6 4.4 0.7 19.6 36.4 Japan-U.S. 55.0 Settlement 1.7 0.5 14.5 16.7 38.3 Interconnect 1.7 0.5 0.7 2.9 52.2 Notes: 1. Costs shown are indicative of carriers cost per call but may not reflect actual costs. Selling, General & Administrative (SG&A) expenses are excluded. 2. All costs are expressed in U.S. cents and exclusive of taxes. Component costs may not appear to sum to total cost due to rounding. 3. Rates are based on international calls originating or terminating from Washington, D.C. at peak hours. All rates are current as of October 2003. 4. U.S. origination cost includes access charges paid to local Exchange Carrier (Verizonl and U.S. domestic network costs for transmitting calls to an interna- tiona I gateway. 5. Non-U.S. carriers may own significant portions of home country local networks, in which case origination costs are counted as intra-corporate transfers. 6. Circuit costs are based on one-year leases. 7. Calculations converting 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 I per day. 8. Interconnection rates show price for national termination, except Canada and Japan, where the regional rate is used. 9. Direct interconnection by foreign carriers to the domestic public switched telephone network is not permitted in Mexico. 10. Settlement rates are for peak rate traffic terminated by the largest foreign carrier. 11 Wholesale rates reflect average prices of traffic from the Arbinet minutes exchange on October 5, 2003. Source: TeleGeography research; AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange; FCC carrier filings © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA I NC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 91 PRICE & REVENUE U.S. International Settlement Rates Destination 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Andorra 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.27 0.29 Argentina 0.33 0.19 0.1 9 0.19 0.19 Australia 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.11 Austria 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 Bahamas 0.30/0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.11 Bahrain 0.55 0.55 0.19 0.19 0.19 Bangladesh 0.80 0.67 0.31 0.13 0.14 Belarus 0.43 0.35 0.22 0.19 0.19 Belgium 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 Bolivia 0.43 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 Brazil 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 Canada 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 Chile 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 China 0.58 0.50 0.35 0.20 0.18 Colombia 0.38 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 Costa Rica 0.29 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.19 Croatia 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.19 Cyprus 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.15 0.15 Czech Republic 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.19 Denmark 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 Dominican Republic 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 El Salvador 0.31 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.19 Finland 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.11 France 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 French Polynesia 0.70 0.70 0.15 0.15 0.15 Germany 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 Ghana 0.50 0.38 0.30 0.23 0.23 Greece 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 Guyana 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.23 0.23 Hong Kong 0.07 O.Q7 0.06 0.06 0.07 Hungary 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 Iceland 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 India 0.64 0.54 0.43 0.34 0.23 Indonesia 0.48 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 Iran 0.90 0.78 0.19 0.19 0.19 Ireland 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 Israel 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Italy 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 Japan 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 Jordan 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.19 0.19 Notes: 1. All rates expressed in US$. Equivalent dollar values are presented for accounting rates that are established in Special Drawing Rights (SDRsl or gold francs. The exchange rates used to convert SDRs to U.S. dollars are: 1999: 1SDR=$1.3713; 2000: 1SDR=$1.2842; 2001: 1SDR=$1.2457; 2002: 1SDR=$1.2701, 2003: 1 SDR=1.37379. Gold francs were converted using a linking coefficient value of $1=2.5374 GF. 2. Average U.S. settlement rates in 2000 and 2001 are for the month of July. Rates in other years are for August. 3. Where two rates are shown, there are peak/off-peak rates or growth-based rates (traffic above a benchmark level is eligible for a lower rate I. 4. Rates are for the largest carrier serving the route. Different settlement rates may apply to competing carriers. Source: FCC © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 92 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Destination 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Kazakhstan 0.51 0.34 0.16 0.16 0.14 Korea, Rep. 0.36 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.19 Kuwait 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Luxembourg 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.08 Macau 0.50 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Malaysia 0.40 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Mexico 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.10 Moldova 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.19 Netherlands 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 New Zealand 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 Norway 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.08 Oman 0.68 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.19 Pakistan 0.60 0.51 0.36 0.23 0.21 Panama 0.45 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.19 Paraguay 0.40 0.40 0.19 0.19 0.19 Peru 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 Philippines 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Poland 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Portugal 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.11 Russia 0.35 0.30 0.20 0.14 0.14 Saudi Arabia 0.68 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.14 Serbia & Montenegro 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.26 0.17 Singapore 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Slovak Republic 0.29 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.14 Slovenia 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.17 0.19 South Africa 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 Spain 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 Sri Lanka 0.60 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.23 Sweden 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Switzerland 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 Taiwan 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Thailand 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.19 Turkey 0.33 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.19 Ukraine 0.50 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.11 United Arab Emirates 1.00/0.65 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 U.K. 0.11/0.07 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.10/0.06 0.11/0.07 Uruguay 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Uzbekistan 0.60 0.45 0.19 0.11 0.09 Venezuela 0.32 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.19 Vietnam 0.78 0.67 0.56 0.65 0.62 Notes: 1. All rates expressed in US$. 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=$1.2842; 2001 : 1SDR=$1.2457; 2002: 1SDR=$1.2701, 2003: 1 SDR=1.37379. Gold francs were converted using a linking coefficient value of $1=2.5374 GF. 2. Average U.S. settlement rates in 2000 and 2001 are for the month of July. Rates in other years are for August. 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 apply to competing carriers. Source: FCC © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 93 PRICE & REVENUE Termination Rates By Country, 2001-2003 Local Termination Regional Termination National Termination (U.S. cents) (U.S. cents) (U.S. cents) 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 Argentina 1.04 0.97 0.97 1.04 0.97 0.97 1.04 0.97 0.97 Australia n.a. 0.52 0.52 n.a. 0.76 0.73 n.a. 3.24 2.86 Austria 1.05 1.06 0.99 1.61 1.55 1.52 2.61 2.53 2.63 Belgium 0.74 0.83 0.77 1.20 1.17 1.08 1.60 1.39 1.26 Cana da n.a n.a n.a. 0.25 0.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Denmark 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.95 0.96 0.96 1.42 1.44 1.43 Finland 0.59 0.59 0.58 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.78 0.79 0.78 France 0.62 0.59 0.58 1.25 1.11 1.05 1.86 1.47 1.45 Germany 0.74 0.77 0.76 1.13 1.26 1.25 1.78 2.20 2.17 Greece 0.82 0.77 0.77 1.35 1.37 1.37 2.26 3.05 3.03 Hong Kong 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.64 1.63 Hungary 10.39 2.36 1.80 10.39 2.84 2.46 10.39 3.70 2.90 India n.a. 9.74 12.59 n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. 28.77 14.58 Ireland 0.74 0.47 0.36 1.13 0.78 0.64 1.54 1.12 0.96 Italy 0.88 0.77 0.76 1.56 1.25 1.23 2.11 1.96 1.93 Japan 1.38 1.37 1.34 1.76 1.45 1.65 n.a. n.a. n.a. Luxembourg 1.72 n.a. n.a. 1.72 1.32 1.31 1.72 1.62 1.61 Mexico 1.25 0.98 0.98 1.25 0.98 0.98 1.25 0.98 0.98 Netherlands 0.69 0.69 0.62 0.90 0.91 0.82 1.11 1.15 1.05 New Zealand 1.61 1.57 0.67 1.61 1.57 0.67 1.61 1.57 0.67 Norway 0.58 0.52 0.57 0.71 0.64 0.70 0.89 0.82 0.89 Portugal 0.77 0.96 0.59 1.51 1.42 1.27 2.60 2.08 1.94 Spain 0.89 0.90 0.89 1.35 1.24 1.36 2.58 2.62 2.52 Sweden 0.69 0.66 0.65 0.93 0.89 0.88 1.13 1.01 1.01 Switzerland n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.45 1.32 1.20 2.26 2.08 1.91 U.K. 0.64 0.63 0.60 0.92 0.88 0.82 1.97 1.95 1.90 u.s. 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Notes: 1. All interconnection charges are for peak period. 2. All rates are established in national currencies and presented here in U.S. cents. All rates were converted using October 2003 exchange rates. 3. Local termination is the lowest level of interconnection, typically giving a carrier access to a single town or part of a city. 4. Regional and national termination are also known as single tandem and double tandem termination. 5. Regional termination generally gives a carrier access to all subscribers within a metropolitan area or a North American area code. 6. U.S. termination fees vary according to Local Exchange Carrier (LEC). U.S. average for regional termination was 0.78¢ as of October 2003. Source: National regulatory agencies and ITU © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 94 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Wholesale Rates by Country, 2000-2003 Rate to Largest City (USe) Rate to Mobiles (USe) Rate to Rest of Country (USe) Africa 2000 2001 2002 20113 21100 2001 2002 2003 21100 2001 2002 2003 Algeria n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.0 n.a. n.a 11.2 10.7 14.2 12.8 10.8 8.2 Egypt 31.6 19.1 12.9 12.9 36.0 24.6 16.3 10.3 . 31.5 21.1 16.4 12.8 Nigeria 17.7 12.7 7.4 4.5 39.0 28.6 22.3 17.4 29.8 23.5 22.9 9.8 South Africa 10.7 7.6 4.1 4.3 17.2 11.1 18.4 15.2 14.2 8.5 4.3 4.4 Africa Average 20.0 16.6 13.5 152 27.4 21.9 18.4 15.7 24.3 20.4 192 14.9 Asia Australia n.a. n.a. n.a 1.4 9.7 15.7 13.8 12.9 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.4 China 6.2 3.4 1.8 1.3 13.2 7.4 2.5 1.5 10.0 5.3 2.2 1.3 Hong Kong n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.0 2.2 2.7 1.9 1.0 India 24.0 18.5 15.8 8.3 44.8 41.0 25.0 9.2 41 .5 37.9 24.6 12.2 Israel 4.6 4.1 2.9 1.9 12.0 13.0 8.4 4.4 5.2 4.5 2.9 1.9 Japan 3.1 2.9 2.5 1.8 13.5 16.8 14.7 10.7 3.6 3.2 2.4 1.8 Malaysia 5.1 3.4 2.9 1.8 5.9 4.5 3.2 3.2 5.5 3.5 2.8 1.8 New Zealand 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.5 6.9 15.9 15.1 20.4 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.5 Pakistan n.a. 34.8 24.4 18.9 n.a. 36.0 24.4 19.5 42.6 35.5 23.8 18.9 PhiliQQines 10.9 9.6 8.9 12.2 11.6 10.1 13.4 15.0 11.2 10.2 9.2 12.2 Saudi Arabia n.a. 14.3 5.7 3.7 37.3 23.5 18.5 18.8 34.2 20.2 16.6 15.7 Singapore n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.2 1.6 1.6 1.1 3.7 1.5 1.4 1.1 Taiwan 4.3 3.1 2.5 n.a. 7.4 9.6 8.1 6.9 5.2 3.9 2.5 1.4 Thailand 7.5 5.7 3.3 3.9 18.9 14.2 9.8 7.3 17.2 14.2 9.9 n.a. Vietnam 52.1 51.2 44.5 25.3 57.0 53.3 39.6 26.4 54.9 49.6 37.2 26.2 Asia Average 16.8 15.7 11.0 8.9 22.8 19.4 15.2 14.8 25.8 21.0 16.1 12.7 Euro e Austria 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.3 13.6 14.8 15.6 n.a. 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 Finland 3.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 6.6 12.9 14.6 11.7 3.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 France 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 22.5 16.4 15.7 12.8 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.2 Germany 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 21 .1 14.7 14.5 16.1 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.2 Greece 4.6 2.6 3.0 2.3 11 .1 7.7 11.2 12.1 8.8 3.9 3.6 2.4 Ireland 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 14.3 13.8 14.6 n.a. 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 Italy 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.2 24.2 16.7 16.1 12.8 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.2 Netherlands 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 20.1 15.8 19.4 18.0 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.2 Poland 6.1 3.4 3.2 1.8 11.9 9.6 17.4 17.2 9.9 5.1 3.8 1.7 Russia 3.3 2.5 1.4 1.1 10.0 9.8 5.4 3.7 10.5 9.1 5.6 3.8 Spain 2.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 23.4 16.3 18.2 15.0 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.0 Sweden 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.2 7.0 15.2 14.2 11.5 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.0 Switzerland 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.6 16.9 17.0 16.7 19.3 2.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 Europe Average 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.3 13.3 12.8 13.7 13.5 10.2 8.6 8.1 4.5 Latin America & Caribbean Argentina 6.9 3.7 1.9 0.9 13.6 8.0 6.8 n.a. 11.2 7.6 6.6 2.8 Brazil 4.5 2.9 2.0 2.0 14.2 13.4 10.0 10.2 11.7 10.5 6.9 4.1 Chile n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.2 11.2 n.a. 5.0 3.1 2.5 1.2 Colombia 5.7 5.5 4.8 3.5 13.6 9.3 8.3 5.9 11 .2 8.3 7.9 5.3 Mexico n.a. 4.1 3.7 1.5 12.1 12.3 11.8 6.3 9.4 12.0 9.7 8.0 Peru 6.5 4.9 3.9 2.0 21.0 16.8 20.2 14.2 15.2 11 .2 8.9 n.a. Latin America & Carib. Avg. 8.0 6.7 5.5 4.4 19.1 18.7 16.6 14.7 18.8 17.3 16.0 112 U.S. & Canada Canada n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.2 1.7 1.6 n.a. United States n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.2 U.S. & Canada Average n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.2 Notes: Rates for 2003 reflect average price of wholesale traffic from the Arbinet minutes exchange on October 5, 2003. Rates for 2000-2003 reflect prices from the Band-X london Switch in August of each year. Rates for 2000-2003, originally established in U.K. pounds sterling, are expressed here as U.S. cents based on exchange rate conversions of 1.500$/£ in August 2000, 1.426$/£ in August 2001, and 1.536$/£ in August 2002. Regional averages are simple, unweighted averages for all countries within a region. Global Average is an unweighted average for all countries in the world. Source: AXCESSRATESM by Arbinet-thexchange; Band-X. ltd.; TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 95 PRICE & REVENUE Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call 96 Retail Rate (US$) for Fixed-Line Termination, October 2003 From/To Australia Australia n.a. Austria peak 1.06 Austria off-peak 0.89 Belgium peak 1.45 Belgium off-peak 1.11 Canada Q75 Czech Rep. Peak 0.84 Czech Rep. off-peak 0.80 Denmark 1.60 Finland peak 1.28 Finland off-peak 0.96 France peak 1.35 France off-peak 0.69 Germany 0.60 Ireland peak 2.37 Ireland off-peak 1.21 Italy 2.67 Japan peak 5.21 Japan off-peak 3.29 Korea, Rep. peak 2.95 Korea, Rep. off-peak 2.06 Mexico 2.67 Netherlands 0.56 Norway 0.38 Poland 2.63 Portugalpeak t16 Portugal off-peak 1.29 Singapore 1.04 Singapore off-peak 0.86 Spain 2.57 Sweden 1.03 Switzerland peak 0.56 Switzerland off-peak 0.42 Turkey peak 3.10 Turkey off-peak 2.48 U.K. peak 1.00 U.K. off-peak 0.46 U.S. (MCI) peak 0.48 U.S. (MCI) off-peak 0.24 U.S. (AT&T) 0.36 Notes: Austria 1.37 n.a. n.a. 0.80 0.66 0.34 0.84 0.80 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.70 0.43 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.39 0.51 1.18 0.72 0.40 2.42 2.42 0.56 0.65 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 1.12 0.96 0.48 0.24 0.36 Belgium 1.37 0.86 0.69 n.a. n.a 1.32 0.84 0.80 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.21 0.33 1.18 0.72 0.40 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.42 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Canada 0.66 1.06 0.89 0.59 0.35 n.a. 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.28 0.79 0.60 0.34 0.16 0.53 0.42 0.80 3.93 3.11 3.83 2.67 1.53 0.28 0.38 2.63 0.66 0.35 0.67 0.67 1.44 0.42 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 0.71 0.46 0.21 0.15 0.18 1. All rates are in U.S. dollars exclusive of taxes and were current on October 31,2003. Czech Rep. 1.99 0.69 0.53 1.79 1.48 0.73 n.a. n.a. 1.13 1.26 0.77 1.24 0.88 0.52 1.34 1.16 1.30 7.87 5.58 3.45 2.40 2.14 1.05 0.51 1.18 1.39 0.82 3.28 3.28 1.26 0.65 1.39 1.04 2.07 1.33 1.12 0.96 1.23 0.87 0.81 Denmark 1.37 0.86 0.69 0.80 0.66 0.43 0.84 0.79 n.a. 0.46 0.33 1.16 0.89 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.32 0.31 1.18 0.71 0.40 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.20 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.83 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Finland 1.58 0.86 0.69 0.80 0.66 0.50 0.84 0.79 0.38 n.a. n.a 0.70 0.43 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.42 0.46 1.29 0.71 0.40 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.20 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 1.12 0.96 0.48 0.24 0.36 France 1.06 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.35 0.34 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.26 0.77 n.a. n.a. 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 5.30 1.65 3.43 2.41 2.14 0.21 0.35 1.29 0.57 0.29 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.42 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 2. Rates for calls from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, O.C. to Montreal and Mexico City. 3. Where available, retail prices refleCt rates under discount calling plans of the major carrier in each country. Most of these calling plans require a monthly subscription fee. For example, the AT&T AnyHour International Savings Plan charges $2.95 per month. 4. Rates do not include special supplements for calls to mobile phones. 5. Peak and off-peak rates are listed only for carriers that offered different rates based on time and day. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Germany Hong Kong 1.06 0.96 0.69 1.06 0.53 0.89 0.59 1.45 0.35 1.11 0.57 0.23 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 n.a. 1.05 0.81 0.80 5.30 1.65 3.43 2.41 2.14 0.39 0.31 1.18 0.66 0.35 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.42 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Notes: 1.23 1.18 1.89 2.71 2.71 1.35 0.75 0.60 2.37 1.21 2.67 4.57 2.84 2.60 1.81 2.67 1.16 1.30 4.76 2.16 1.31 1.21 1.21 2.57 1.58 1.39 1.04 5.31 4.13 1.37 1.12 0.51 0.30 0.30 Ireland 0.66 1.06 0.89 0.80 0.66 0.50 0.84 0.79 0.94 1.26 0.77 0.70 0.43 0.16 n.a. n.a. 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.42 0.47 1.29 0.71 0.40 2.42 2.42 0.56 0.65 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.67 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Retail Rate (US$) for Fixed-Line Termination, October 2003 Italy 1.06 0.69 0.53 0.59 0.35 0.34 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.1 6 1.34 1.16 n.a. 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.42 0.35 1.29 0.71 0.40 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.65 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 0.92 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Japan 1.06 1.06 0.89 1.45 1.11 0.43 1.23 1.18 2.55 1.50 1.50 1.35 0.69 0.60 2.37 1.21 2.67 n.a. n.a. 2.13 1.50 2.67 1.02 0.51 4.76 2.16 1.31 1.55 1.55 2.57 1.03 0.56 0.42 3.10 2.48 1.53 1.41 0.42 0.24 0.30 Korea. Rep. 1.89 1.06 0.89 1.99 1.48 0.34 1.23 1.18 4.15 2.71 2.71 1.35 0.69 0.60 2.37 1.21 2.67 3.38 2.47 n.a. n.a. 2.67 1.51 2.22 4.76 3.36 2.17 1.81 1.55 2.57 2.98 0.56 0.42 5.31 4.13 2.70 2.58 0.42 0.21 0.24 Mexico 2.51 2.12 1.79 2.46 1.96 1.03 2.93 2.79 4.15 4.57 4.57 2.29 1.34 1.53 2.12 2.12 3.07 6.49 4.12 4.07 2.85 n.a. 1.89 2.50 4.76 3.36 2.17 3.45 3.45 1.72 2.05 1.39 1.04 3.10 2.48 2.70 2.58 1.17 0.75 0.51 Nethlands 1.16 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.35 0.23 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.16 1.05 0.81 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.43 2.41 2.14 n.a. 0.35 1.18 0.71 0.40 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.42 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 1. All rates are in U.S. dollars and exclusive of taxes and were current on October 31 2003. 2. Rates for calls from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, O.C. to Montreal and Mexico City. Norway 1.48 0.86 0.69 0.80 0.66 0.23 0.84 0.79 0.21 0.46 0.33 0.70 0.43 0.16 1.34 1.16 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.39 n.a. 1.29 0.71 0.40 1.73 1.73 1.08 0.20 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 1.00 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 To/From Austral ia Austria peak Austria off-peak Belgium peak Belgium off-peak Canada Czech Rep. Peak Czech Rep. off-peak Denmark Finland peak Finland off-peak France peak France off-peak Germany Ireland peak Ireland off-peak Ita ly Japan peak Japan off-peak Korea, Rep. peak Korea, Rep. off-peak Mexico peak Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal peak Portugal off-peak Singapore peak Singapore off-peak Spain peak Sweden Switzerland peak Switzerland off-peak Turkey peak Turkey off-peak U.K. peak U.K. off-peak U.S. (MCI) peak U.S. (MCI) off-peak U.S. (AT&T) 3. Where available, retail prices reflect rates under discount calling plans. Most of these calling plans require a monthly subscription fee. For example, the AT&T AnyHour International Savings Plan charges $2.95 per month. 4. Rates do not include special supplements for calls to mobile phones. 5. Peak and off-peak rates are listed only for carriers that offered different rates based on time and day. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 97 PRICE & REVENUE Retail Prices for a Three-Minute Call 98 From/To Australia Austria peak Austria off-peak Belgium peak Belgium off-peak Canada Czech Rep. Peak Czech Rep. off-peak Denmark Finland peak Finland off-peak France peak France off-peak Germany Ireland peak Ireland off-peak Italy Japan peak Japan off-peak Korea, Rep. peak Korea, Rep. off-peak Mexico peak Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal peak Portugal off-peak Singapore peak Singapore off-peak Spain peak Sweden Switzerland peak Switzerland off-peak Turkey peak Turkey off-peak U.K. peak U.K. off-peak U.S. (MCI) peak U.S. (MCI) off-peak U.S. (AT&T) Notes: Poland 1.99 1.06 0.89 1.93 1.59 0.66 0.72 0.69 0.85 1.26 0.77 1.24 0.88 0.60 1.34 1.16 1.30 7.87 5.58 3.45 2.40 2.14 0.91 1.00 n.a 1.39 0.82 3.28 3.28 1.26 0.65 1.39 1.04 2.07 1.33 1.12 0.96 1.02 0.84 0.45 Retail Rate (US$) for Fixed-Line Termination, October 2003 Portugal 2.41 1.06 0.89 0.80 0.66 0.55 0.84 0.79 1.13 1.28 0.96 0.70 0.43 0.16 1.34 1.16 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.81 1.09 1.29 n.a. n.a. 3.28 3.28 0.56 1.03 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.96 0.75 0.48 0.24 0.36 Singapore 1.16 1.06 0.89 1.45 1.11 0.23 1.23 1.18 2.64 2.71 2.71 2.29 1.35 1.59 2.37 1.21 2.67 5.03 3.66 2.60 1.81 2.67 1.26 0.85 4.76 3.36 2.17 n.a. n.a. 2.56 1.03 1.39 1.04 3.10 2.48 1.62 1.46 0.72 0.42 0.42 Spain 1.48 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.35 0.66 0.84 0.79 0.94 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.16 1.34 1.16 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.42 0.35 1.29 0.46 0.21 2.42 2.42 n.a 0.65 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.92 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 Sweden 1.27 0.86 0.69 0.80 0.66 0.39 0.84 0.79 0.15 0.46 0.33 0.70 0.43 0.16 1.34 1.16 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.49 2.43 2.14 0.28 0.31 1.18 3.36 2.17 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.42 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.67 0.48 0.24 0.36 Switzerland 1.27 0.69 0.33 0.80 0.66 0.59 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.16 1.34 1.16 0.80 6.86 5.03 3.43 2.41 2.14 0.35 0.35 1.18 0.66 0.35 1.73 1.73 0.56 0.42 n.a. n.a 2.07 1.33 0.79 0.46 0.48 0.24 0.36 1. All rates are in U.S. dollars exclusive of taxes and were current on October 31, 2003. 2. Rates for calls from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico are from Washington, D.C. to Montreal and Mexico City. Turkey 1.79 1.06 0.89 1.45 1.11 0.84 1.67 1.59 1.32 1.50 1.50 1.24 0.88 0.60 2.55 2.21 1.30 6.86 5.03 3.45 2.44 2.14 1.09 1.77 2.63 1.39 0.82 3.28 3.28 1.26 1.13 1.39 1.04 n.a. n.a. 1.41 1.33 1.53 1.35 1.29 U.K. 0.66 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.35 0.32 0.84 0.79 0.53 1.26 0.77 0.60 0.34 0.16 0.43 0.34 0.80 3.93 1.65 2.89 2.03 2.14 0.18 0.35 1.29 0.66 0.35 1.02 1.02 0.56 1.03 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 n.a. n.a. 0.3 0.21 0.24 u.s. 0.66 1.06 0.89 0.59 0.35 0.23 0.84 0.79 0.66 1.28 0.79 0.60 0.34 0.16 0.53 0.42 0.80 1.65 1.10 1.84 1.28 1.22 0.18 0.35 2.63 0.65 0.34 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.34 0.28 0.21 2.07 1.33 0.67 0.46 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3. Where available, retail prices refteh rates under discount calling plans of the major carrier in each country. Most of these calling plans require a monthly subscription fee. For example, the AT&T AnyHour International Savings Plan charges $2.95 per month. 4. Rates do not include special supplements for calls to mobile phones. 5. Peak and off-peak rates are listed only for carriers that offered different rates based on time and day. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 PRICE & REVENUE Retail Pricing Trends, 2000-2003 Average Retail Price for a Three-Minute Call, 2000-2003 $8.00 from Australia $8.00 from Belgium $6.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 n.a. $0.00 L_ __ Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. u.s. Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. U.S. $8.00 from Japan $8.00 from Germany $6.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 n.a. $0.00 Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. U.S. Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. U.S. $8.00 from U.K. $8.00 from U.S. $6.00 $6.00 $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 n.a. $0.00 $0.00 Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. U.S. Australia Germany Japan Mexico U.K. u.s. Key • • • • 2000 2001 2002 2003 Notes: All rates are for peak calling and are expressed in U.S. dollars. To correct for exchange rate fluctuation in the time series, all retail prices 12000-2003) were converted to U.S. dollars using October 2003 exchange rates. Source: PSI Media (2000) and TeleGeography (2001-2003) research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 99 PRICE & REVENUE 100 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © TELEGEOGRAPHY, INC 2003 Traffic Summary TRAFFIC SUMMARY 102 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Global Traffic Review Figure 1. International Traffic and Main Line Growth 5,000 500 4,500 450 c..> :E: c;; " = 4,000 400 • Fixed main lines " .E 3,500 350 = • Cellular subscribers 0 ·~ (i) International call minutes " Q) Q) 3,000 300 ...,_ ·c :J ..c :J.~ ·.:: c..> 2,500 250 E E " E-..c 0 0 => " c..> " 2,000 200 Q) = Q) ~~ "0 ·~ 1,500 150 -:0 "0 "-= ""§ 0 1,000 100 ·.;::; :s: " = 500 50 = 0 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Notes: Data include outbound international traffic on public networks only, VoiP call volumes are excluded. Projections assume 10 percent traffic growth, 5 percent main line growth, and 20 percent mobile subscriber growth annually. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Figure 2. International Traffic, Revenue, and Subscriber Growth Historical Trend Slow Growth Moderate Growth Fast Growth CAGR CAGR CAGR CAGR Indicator 1998 2002 1998-2002 2006 2002-2006 2006 2002-2006 2006 2002-2006 Calls (bn) 29.0 55.4 17.6% 75.4 8.0% 90.9 13.2% 108.6 18.3% Minutes (bn) 93.4 155.2 13.5% 188.6 5.0% 227.2 10.0% 271 .4 15.0% per main line subscriber 110.5 141.7 6.4% 153.0 1.9% 170.6 4.8% 189.0 7.5% per main line plus mobile 80.3 68.9 -3.8% 64.4 -1.7% 60.9 -3.0% 57.2 -4.5% Revenue (US$ bn) 69.2 53.3 -6.3% 42.5 -5.5% 40.7 -6.5% 38.2 -8.0% Assumptions Call length (mins) 3.2 2.8 -3.5% 2.5 -2.8% 2.5 -2.8% 2.5 -2.8% Price per minute (US$) 0.74 0.34 -17.5% 0.23 -10.0% 0.18 -15.0% 0.14 -20.0% Main lines (bn) 0.8 1.1 6.7% 1.2 3.0% 1.3 5.0% 1.4 7.0% Mobile subscribers (bn) 0.3 1.2 38.1% 1.7 10.0% 2.4 20.0% 3.3 30.0% Total subscribers (bn) 1.2 2.3 18.0% 2.9 6.8% 3.7 13.4% 4.7 20.5% Notes: 1998-2002 based on reported data. 2003-2006 based on TeleGeography forecasts. Scenarios are as follows: 1. Slow Growth: PSTN traffic continue to grow at a similarly slow pace experienced io 2000-2001 as newly competitive markets mature and as traffic migrates to IP networks. 2. Moderate Growth: PSTN traffic growth returns to rates experienced prior to the widespread market liberalization of the late 1990s as price cutting keeps traffic on the PSTN. 3. Fast Growth: PSTN traffic growth accelerates from 2000-2001 rates as mobile subscriber growth remains strong and continued price cutting stimulates traffic increases. Source: TeleGeography research and ITU World Telecommunication Indicators Database © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2004 1 03 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 3. Intercontinental Traffic Flows, 1997 and 2002 Key Traffic Flows 5,000 2,500 1,000 100 Million Minutes Notes: Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public network in both directions between each pair of countries. These maps show all intercontinental routes with an annual volume of more than 100 million minutes. The total volume of these routes in 2002 was 43.5 billion minutes, approximately 28 percent of global international traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 104 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Region Figure 1. Interregional Traffic Flows, 2002 Notes: These interregional traffic flows total55.2 billion minutes. That sum does not equal global PSTN total of 155.2 billion minutes because (1) data set is based on top 20 outgoing routes for 130 largest countries only; (2) traffic within regions account for a further 60.0 billion minutes based on data set; (3) interregional routes below 100 million minutes are not shown. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Figure 2. International Traffic by Origin, 2002 Latin America & Carribean 3.9% I Note: Global traffic was 155.2 billion minutes in 2002. Data do not included VoiP calls. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 Figure 3. Traffic Growth by Region, 2001-2002 " s 20% :::> 0 cc "0 c: :::> 15% 0 -B :::> 0 c: 10% 0 " " ctl 5% c.J ..!:: c.J iE ctl 0% us & Europe Africa Asia & c: Latin " Canada Oceania c.J -5% America Q; "- Notes: Global traffic was 155.2 billion minutes in 2002. Data do not include VoiP calls. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 105 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all intra-European routes with a combined 2002 volume of more than 200 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research -Traffic Flows 600 400 200 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 106 TELEG EOG RAPHY 2004 0 Total Outgoing Traffic 250 1,000 5,000 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. ..... Balance ofTraffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total. an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all routes within Latin America with a combined 2002 volume of more than 10 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Traffic Flows 100 50 10 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 0 Total Outgoing Traffic © 00 500 1,000 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. TRAFFIC SUMMARY _.. Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total, an arrow shows the direction most of the traffic flows. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 107 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Key All figures are given in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic for the public telephone network. The map shows all intra·Asian routes with a combined 2002 volume of more than 50 million minutes. Source: TeleGeography research 108 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 -Traffic Flows 500 200 50 Million Minutes Each band is proportional to the total annual traffic on the public telephone network in both directions between each pair of countries. 0 Total Outgoing Traffic ® 10:00 1,500 Million Minutes The area of each circle is proportional to the volume of the total annual outgoing traffic from each country. __.. Balance of Traffic On routes where traffic in one direction accounts for more than 60 percent of the total, an arrow shows the direction of most of the traffic flows. © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Country Figure 1. Top 25 Countries for Outgoing International PSTN Traffic, 2002 u.s. U.K. Germany Canada France Italy Spain Hong Kong Netherlands Switzerland Australia Japan Belgium China Taiwan Mexico Singapore Saudi Arabia U.A.E. Sweden Austria Ireland Russia Israel Denmark 10 15 20 25 Outgoing International Minutes (billions) Notes: Data are in billions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. Source: TeleGeography research © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 40.3 30 35 40 45 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 109 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 2. International Traffic Indicators, 2002 Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m) j!er Caj!ita (tho us.) j!er Main line Albania 62.0 400.8 338.8 3.2 19.4 220 282 Angola 34.3 63.9 29.6 13.9 2.5 85 403 Argentina 426.7 n.a. n.a. 37.9 11 .3 8,009 53 Armenia 36.2 58.3 22.1 3.1 11.8 543 67 Australia 3 078.0 n.a. n.a. 19.6 157.2 10 590 291 Austria 1,603.0 n.a n.a. 8.1 196.9 3,988 402 Azerbaijan 32.5 n.a. n.a. 8.2 4.0 989 33 Bahrain 107.1 n.a. n.a. 0.7 159.4 175 611 Barbados 44.2 78.8 34.6 0.3 164.3 n.a. n.a. Belarus 240.6 n.a n.a. 9.9 24.2 2 967 81 Belgium 2,365.4 n.a n.a. 10.3 229.2 5,132 461 Bolivia 39.1 n.a. n.a. 8.7 4.5 564 69 Botswana (a) 63.7 45.7 -18.0 1.1 37.2 n.a. n.a. Brazil 806.0 n.a. n.a. 174.5 4.6 38,810 21 Bulgaria 136.0 213.0 77.0 7.9 17.3 2,922 47 Canada 8,183.0 n.a. n.a. 31 .4 260.5 19,962 410 Cayman Islands 34.7 37.0 2.3 n.a. 992.0 n.a. n.a. Chile 294.3 n.a. n.a. 15.6 18.9 3.467 85 China 2,240.0 n.a. n.a. 1,281.0 1.7 214.420 10 Costa Rica 129.4 158.5 29.1 3.9 32.8 479 270 Cuba 19.2 282.9 263.7 11.3 1.1 n.a. n.a. Cyprus 253.6 163.7 -89.9 0.8 331.5 427 593 Czech Republic 475.0 580.0 105.0 10.2 46.5 2.444 194 Denmark 1,050.0 n.a. n.a. 5.4 195.4 3.739 281 Dominican Re~ublic 222.6 n.a. n.a. 8.6 25.8 583 382 Egypt 198.4 938.3 739.9 66.4 3.0 7.430 27 Estonia 103.2 n.a. n.a. 1.4 76.0 475 217 Rnland 490.0 n.a. n.a. 5.2 94.2 2,850 172 France 8,170.0 n.a. n.a. 59.4 137.4 33,994 240 Georgia 114.4 n.a. n.a. 5.2 22.1 649 176 Germany 10,620.0 n.a n.a. 82.5 128.7 53,720 198 Ghana 58.3 153.0 94.7 20.1 2.9 274 213 Greece 998.0 n.a. n.a. 10.6 93.9 n.a. n.a. Guatemala 145.9 817.7 671.8 12.0 12.2 846 172 Hong Kong (a! 3,981 .1 1,745.3 -2,235.7 6.8 587.8 3,278 1,215 Hungary 327.0 n.a. n.a 10.2 32.2 3,666 89 India (a) (b) 660.0 n.a n.a. 1,048.3 0.6 41,215 16 Indonesia 289.4 429.4 140.1 211.7 1.4 7.750 37 Iran 171.2 118.8 -52.4 65.5 2.6 5,090 34 Ireland (a! (b! 1,395.0 n.a. n.a. 3.9 359.7 1,975 706 Israel 1,193.7 814.1 -379.6 6.5 183.8 3,100 385 Italy 5,840.0 n.a. n.a. 57.9 100.8 27.452 213 Jamaica 56.3 349.6 293.3 2.6 21 .5 450 125 Japan (a) 2,638.5 n.a. n.a 127.1 20.8 71 ,149 37 Jordan 198.4 236.0 37.6 5.2 38.4 675 294 Kazakhstan 131 .6 260.2 128.7 14.8 8.9 2,082 63 Korea, Rep. 1,041.8 928.0 -113.8 47.6 21.9 18,600 56 Kuwa it 189.8 n.a. n.a. 2.1 90.2 482 394 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31, 2003. New Zealand and Pakistan fiscal years end June 30, 2003. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes (See country table for details). Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 110 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TRAFFIC SUMMARY Figure 2. International Traffic Indicators, 2002 (continued) Outgoing Incoming Balance Population Minutes (Out) · Main Lines Minutes (Out) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m minutes) (m) j!er Caj!ita (thous.) j!er Main Line Kyrgyzstan 18.3 44.5 26.3 5.0 3.6 395 46 Latvia 63.0 110.6 47.6 2.3 27.0 701 90 Luxembourg 414.0 n.a. n.a. 0.4 932.4 n.a. n.a. Macau 152.7 114.0 -38.7 0.4 344.8 153 996 Macedonia 64.7 192.5 127.8 2.0 31.7 26 2 454 Malaysia (a) 982.0 1,050.0 68.0 24.3 40.4 4,670 210 Malta 43.8 65.6 21.8 0.4 110.2 207 211 Mauritius 37.1 64.0 26.9 1.2 30.6 327 113 Mexico 1,996.9 5,836.9 3,840.0 100.9 19.8 14,942 134 Moldova 65.8 191.4 125.6 4.3 15.5 n.a. n.a. Namibia 60.6 52.1 -8.5 1.8 33.2 121 499 Netherlands 3,525.0 n.a. n.a. 16.1 218.3 10,000 353 New Zealand (a) 984.0 n.a. n.a. 3.9 254.3 1,719 572 Nicaragua 44.0 n.a. n.a. 5.3 8.2 172 256 Nigeria 86.9 n.a. n.a. 132.8 0.7 702 124 Norway 871.4 n.a. n.a. 4.5 192.0 3,325 262 Oman (b) 165.8 n.a. n.a. 2.5 65.3 228 728 Pakistan (a) (b) 128.3 1,530.4 1,402.1 144.9 0.9 3,655 35 Palestinian Territory 40.9 n.a. n.a. 3.2 12.7 299 137 Paraguat 28.4 71.4 43.0 5.5 5.2 273 104 Peru 141.9 1,090.7 948.8 26.7 5.3 1,766 80 Philippines (a) 461 .0 3,939.2 3,478.2 79.9 5.8 3,311 139 Portugal 970.0 n.a. n.a. 10.0 96.7 4,361 222 Qatar 233.5 134.6 -98.9 0.6 382.8 177 1,323 Russia !bl 1,219.2 1,005.4 -213.8 144.1 8.5 35,500 34 Saudi Arabia 1,916.3 815.2 -1,101.1 22.1 86.6 1,719 1,115 Serbia and Montenegro 284.2 587.1 302.9 10.7 26.7 2,017 141 Singapore (a) 1,965.0 n.a. n.a. 4.2 471.9 1,927 1,020 Slovak Republic 194.0 n.a. n.a. 5.4 35.9 1,119 173 South Africa !a) 567.2 811.8 244.6 43.6 13.0 4,002 142 Spain (c) 4,740.0 n.a. n.a. 41 .2 115.1 18,706 253 Swaziland (a) 23.3 18.3 -5.0 1.1 21.4 35 664 Sweden 1,755.0 n.a. n.a. 8.9 196.7 6,579 267 Switzer Ia nd 3,495.0 n.a. n.a. 7.2 483.5 5,335 655 S)ria 179.8 n.a. n.a. 17.0 10.6 2,099 86 Taiwan 2,154.0 n.a. n.a. 22.5 95.9 9,175 235 Tajikistan (b) 10.0 n.a. n.a. 6.3 1.6 238 42 Thailand 419.1 305.0 -1 14.1 61.6 6.8 6,500 64 Trinidad and Tobago (a) 80.2 276.6 196.4 1.3 60.8 209 383 Turket 650.0 1,100.0 450.0 69.6 9.3 18,915 34 Turkmenistan (b) 24.1 n.a. n.a. 5.5 4.3 n.a. n.a. Ukraine 405.0 n.a. n.a. 48.7 8.3 n.a. n.a. United Arab Emirates 1,893.6 n.a. n.a. 3.0 621.0 672 2,817 United Kingdom (a) 14,545.4 9,569.6 -4,975.8 58.9 247.1 29,411 495 United States 40 337.2 14 249.8 -26 087.4 288.4 139.9 159 735 253 Uzbekistan 60.8 n.a. n.a. 25.4 2.4 1,670 36 Yemen 43.9 186.9 143.0 18.6 2.4 542 81 Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31, 2003. New Zealand and Pakistan fiscal years end June 30, 2003. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes (See country table for details}. c. Data include refile traffic. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 111 TRAFFIC SUMMARY International Traffic by Route Figure 1. Top 50 International Routes, 2002 Rank Countries Minutes each Way_ Total Minutes 1. Canada U.S. 6,000.0 4,861 .0 10,861.0 2. U.S. Mexico 5,201.4 1,688.8 6,890.2 3. U.K. U.S. 2,635.0 1,722.4 4,357.5 4. Hong Kong China 2,063.6 882.0 2,945.6 5. U.S. Phili~~ i nes 2,251.5 125.0 2,376.5 6. U.S. India 1.722.6- 95.0 1,817.6 7. U.S.- Germany 1,064.1 695.0 1.759.1 8. U.K. Germany 947.8- 770.0 1.717.8 9. U.K. France 845.6 680.0 1,525.6 10. Ireland U.K. 810.0 691.1 1,501.1 11. U.S. Japan 895.6 525.0 1,420.6 12. Germany France 740.0 650.0 1,390.0 13. Switzerland Germany 710.0 650.0 1,360.0 14. U.S.- Dominican Republic 1,186.2- 160.0 1,346.2 15. Germani- ltali 680.0 620.0 1,300.0 16. U.K.- Spa in 644.6- 630.0 1,274.6 17. Germany Austria 695.0 570.0 1,265.0 18. U.S. Brazil 952.2- 266.0 1,218.2 19. Austral ia U.S. 615.0 579.4 1,194.4 20. U.S. -France 632.6 490.0 1,122.6 21 Taiwan China 749.1- 373.0 1,122.1 22. Germany Netherlands 555.0- 545.0 1,100.0 23. France- Italy 550.0 510.0 1,060.0 24. U.S.- Italy 730.5- 325.0 1,055.5 25. France Belgium 560.0 480.0 1,040.0 26. Australia U.K. 560.0- 478.0 1,038.0 27. Singapore- Malaysia 590.0 415.0 1,005.0 28. U.S. Guatemala 908.8 80.1 988.9 29. Spain France 530.0 440.0 970.0 30. S~ain Germani 565.0 390.0 955.0 31. Germany- Poland 670.0 275.0 945.0 32. Switzerland France 480.0 450.0 930.0 33. Belgium Netherlands 460.0 445.0 905.0 34. U.K. Can ada 464.5 420.0 884.5 35. U.K. ltali 478.0 350.0 828.0 36. New Zealand -Australia 450.0- 360.0 810.0 37. Germany Turkey 600.0 155.0 755.0 38. U.S. Colombia 721 .9 28.1 750.0 39. U.S. China 660.9 80.0 740.9 40. U.S. Korea, Re~. 471.5 257.9 729.4 41 Switzerland Italy 415.0 310.0 725.0 42. U.K. Netherlands 352.3 345.0 697.3 43. U.S. Jamaica 647.3 31.7 679.0 44. France- Morocco 560.0 115.0 675.0 45. U.S. Netherlands 423.8 220.0 643.8 46. U.S. Pakistan 615.2 17.7 632.9 47. Israel U.S. 326.5 297.3 623.8 48. Japan- China 415.0 190.0 605.0 49. U.A.E.- India 514.9- 61 .0 575.8 50. U.S. -Taiwan 315.2 222.1 537.3 Notes: All data in millions of minutes of telecommunications traffic. The country which generates more traffic on each route is listed first. The routes listed above total 73.7 billion minutes, equal to 48 percent of all international traffic. Data for Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand,Singapore, and the U.K. are for fiscal year 2002/2003. The s~m of minutes each way may not equal the total minutes due to rounding. Source: TeleGeography research © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 112 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, I NC 200 3 · Country Traffic Statistics COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Albania LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Italy ... .... ..................... 25.0 2. Greece .......................... 19.2 31.0% 3. France .. .. ...... ........ .. ..... .7.0 11 .3% 4. Germany .......... ..... ... ...... 2.6 4.2% 5. United Kingdom ................... 2.0 • 3.2% 6. United States 00. 00 00 00 00 00 ........ 1.6 • 2.6% 7. Turkey .... 00 .... 00 .. 00 00 .. ...... 1.4 • 2.3% 8. Macedonia ... ... ...... ... .... ... 0.9 I 1.5% 9. Serbia and Montenegro .. .. ... .. 0.8 I 1.3% 10. Monaco .... 00 .................... 0.7 I 1.1% 11 Austria .. ........ .. ....... .. 0.5 I 0.8% 12. Switzerland .. 00 .. ...... 00 ...... ... 0.5 I 0.8% 13. Netherlands .. .................... 0.4 I 0.6% 14. Canada .......... 00 00 ... 00 00 00 ... 0.3 I 0.5% 15. Bulgaria .......................... 0.3 I 0.5% 16. Croatia .. 00 .. ..................... 0.3 I 0.5% 17. Romania ......................... 0.3 I 0.4% 18. Hungary .. ... ..... ... .... .. .... 0.2 I 0.2% 19. Slovenia .. .. 00 00 ...... 00 00 00 00 ... 0.1 I 0.1 % Others .. .. ...... ... .......... 3.9 8111 6.3% TOTAL 62.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 178.6 317.0 400.8 Outgoing 64.9 65.4 62.0 Surplus (Deficit) 113.7 251.6 338.8 Total Volume 243.5 382.4 462.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 114 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Angola LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Portugal ... .. .. .. ........... 15.9 2. South Africa ... .......... .. ... .. 5.2 ••••• 15.3% 3. France .. ..... ... .. ........ .. 1.9 5.5% 4. Namibia ........ ..... .. ... .... 1.7 5.1% 5. Brazil .. .. ... ..... .. ... ... ... 1.6 4.7% 6. United Kingdom .. .. .. .. .. ... 1.4 • 4.1 % 7. United States ..... .... ..... .... 1.2 • 3.6% 8. Netherlands ............ ......... 0.9 • 2.7% 9. Belgium ..... ... ...... .. ... 0.6 I 1.8% 10. Spain ... .. .. .. ... 0.5 I 1.6% 11 Germany ..... ................... 0.5 I 1.5% 12. Italy .. .. ... .. .... .. .... ... .. .. .. 0.4 I 1.0% 13. Switzerland ...... .. .. .. .. ... 0.3 I 0.9% 14. Mozambique .. ...... ... ........ .. 0.3 I 0.7% 15. Canada .......................... 0.2 I 0.7% 16. Gambia .. .... .................... 0.2 I 0.7% 17. Zimbabwe .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.2 I 0.6% 18. Israel .. .. ............ .... .... .. .. 0.2 I 0.6% 19. Russia .. .... ..... .... .... ...... .. 0.2 I 0.6% 20. Cote dlvoire .. .. .................. 0.1 I 0.4% Others ...................... .... 0.5 I 1.4% TOTAL 34.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 39.8 52.2 63.9 Outgoing 35.4 32.8 34.3 Surplus (Deficit) 4.5 19.3 29.6 Total Volume 75.2 85.0 98.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 200 4 115 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Anguilla LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ............ ..... 1.8 •••••••••••• 33.5% 2. United Kingdom ................ ... 0.8 ••••••• 14.9% 3. Sa int Kitts and Nevis ......... .. 0.6 •••• 10.7% 4. Jamaica .. ............... ... 0.4 ••• 7.3% 5. Antigua and Barbuda ...... .. ... ... 0.2 3.8% 6. Barbados ... ... ... ... ....... 0.2 3.8% 7. Dominica ... ................ 0.2 3.3% B. Guyana ....... .. .. ....... .... 0.2 3.1% 9. Sa int Lucia ............. .... .. 0.2 3.1% 10. Trinidad and Tobago ... .... ......... 0.1 • 2.6% 11. Sa int Vincent and the Grenadines ... 0.1 • 1.8% 12. Dominican Republic .... ......... 0.1 I 1.3% 13. Guadeloupe .... ... .. .. .. 0.1 I 0.9% 14. Bermuda .. .. ... ... ... ... .... 0.0 I 0.5% 15. Grenada ........ ... ... ...... .. 0.0 I 0.4% Others .. .. ........... .......... 0.3 4.6% TOTAL 5.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 6.7 Outgoing 4.8 5.7 5.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 1.2 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 12.2 Note: Data are in millions of mrnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 116 TE LEGEOGRAP HY 2004 © PR IM ET RI CA IN C. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Antigua and Barbuda LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 ------------~----~----------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..................... 5.6 36.2% 2. Guyana .......................... 1.2 7.6% 3. Jamaica .. ...... .. ........ ... ... 1.2 7.4% 4. Dominica ......................... 1.1 6.9% 5. Trinidad and Tobago ................ 1.0 6.7% 6. Barbados ... .. .... ... .... ... .. 1.0 A I 6.6% 7. United Kingdom ....... ........... 0.9 5.7% 8. Saint Kitts and Nevis .............. 0.6 4.1% 9. Canada ......... ...... .... .. 0.6 4.0% 10. Saint Lucia ....................... 0.4 • 2.8% 11. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .... 0.3 • 1.8% 12. Grenada ...................... .. 0.2 I 1.1% 13. Anguilla ....... ... .. .............. 0.2 I 1.0% 14. Guadeloupe ....................... 0.2 I 1.0% 15. Cuba ..... ... ............. .. ..... 0.1 I 0.7% 16. Cayman Islands .................. 0.1 I 0.5% Others .................. .. .... .. 0.4 • 2.6% TOTAL 15.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 35.5 Outgoing 20.0 25.6 15.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 20.0 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 50.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 117 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Argentina LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 2. Brazil ........................... 40.0 9.4% 3. Uruguay ... .. .. ............... 38.0 8.9% 4. Spain ... .. .. ....... 37.0 8.7% 5. Peru ....... ........ ........... 33.0 7.7% 6. Chile ............................ 31.0 7.3% 7. Paraguay ........................ 31 .0 7.3% 8. Bolivia .................. .. .. ... 25.0 5.9% 9. Italy .................. ......... 17.0 IFIIII 4.o% 10. Mexico ......................... 12.0 2.8% 11. Canada ......................... .7.0 1.6% 12. China ........... .. ....... ....... 7.0 1.6% 13. France ......... ... ......... ... 7.0 1.6% 14. Honduras ......................... 6.5 1.5% 15. Cuba ... .. ... ..... .. ...... ... .. 6.0 • 1.4% 16. Germany ......................... 6.0 • 1.4% 17. United Kingdom ................... 6.0 • 1.4% 18. Colombia .... .................... 5.0 1.2% 19. Venezuela ..................... 5.0 1.2% 20. Israel ............................ 3.0 I o.1% Others ..... .. ............... 23.2 5.4% TOTAL 426.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 432.1 455.9 426.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 118 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Armenia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ... .... ......... 19,756.0 2. Georgia ......... .......... ... 2,274.0 6.3% 3. Ukraine ....................... 1,657.0 • 4.6% 4. United States ................... 862.0 • 2.4% 5. Greece ........... ..... ...... .422.0 1.2% 6. Iran ...... ....... ..... ........ 355.0 1.0% 7. France .......... .. ............. 301 .0 0.8% 8. Kazakhstan ....... .............. 284.0 0.8% 9. Belarus ............. ......... 270.0 0.7% 10. Turkey ............. .... ....... 258.0 0.7% 11. United Arab Emirates ............. 190.0 0.5% 12. Uzbekistan ............. ... ..... 146.0 0.4% 13. Turkmenistan ........... ... .... 128.0 0.4% 14. United Kingdom ...... ........ 125.0 0.3% 15. Netherlands ..................... 86.0 0.2% 16. Syria ............................ 81.0 I 0.2% 17. Spain ........................... 80.0 I 0.2% 18. Latvia .... .................... 72.0 I 0.2% 19. Belgium ......................... 70.0 I 0.2% Others ........................ 8,690.0 ••••••• 24.0% TOTAL 36,180.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 58.3 Outgoing 31.4 34.6 36.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 22.1 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 94.5 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 119 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Australia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................. .. 615.0 2. United Kingdom ... ... ..... .... .. 560.0 3. New Zealand ................... 360.0 •••••••••••••••• 20.0% ••••••••••• 18.2% ••••••••• 11.7% 4. Canada ......... ... ...... ... .. 140.0 4.5% 5. Philippines ...... ..... ...... .. 135.0 4.4% 6. Hong Kong ...................... 100.0 3.2% 7. Japan ... ... ...... ... ..... .... 100.0 3.2% 8. China ........................... 95.0 3.1% 9. Singapore ....................... 90.0 2.9% 10. India ..... ...................... 80.0 2.6% 11. Germany ....................... .70.0 2.3% 12. Italy ............................ 65.0 2.1% 13. Malaysia ........................ 55.0 • 1.8% 14. Indonesia ....................... 50.0 • 1.6% 15. Vietnam ......................... 50.0 • 1.6% Others ............. ........... 538.0 •••••••••••••• 17.5% TOTAL 3,078.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FV 2000/2001 FV 2001/2002 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,650.0 3,030.0 3,078.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 30 June. 120 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Austria LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... ........ ... ...... 570.0 2. Italy ... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .90.0 5.6% 3. Switzerland ........ .. .. ...... ... 90.0 5.6% 4. Hungary 00 00 00 00 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .60.0 3.7% 5. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0060.0 3.7% 6. United States ....... ......... 60.0 3.7% 7. Poland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0050.0 • 3.1% 8. Romania 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 50.0 • 3.1% 9. United Kingdom ........ .. .... .. .. 47.0 • 2.9% 10. France .. ............ ..... ..... 37.0 • 2.3% 1 1. Serbia and Montenegro ........... 35.0 • 2.2% 12. Bosnia-Herzegovina ............... 30.0 • 1.9% 13. Spain 00 00 00 00 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .30.0 • 1.9% 14. Slovak Republic ...... ... ...... 28.0 I 1.7% 15. Croatia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00.26.0 I 1.6% 16. Czech Republic 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .26.0 I 1.6% 17. Netherlands 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.25.0 I 1.6% 18. Slovenia ...... ............... 19.0 I 1.2% 19. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 0015.0 I 0.9% 20. Russia 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00.15.0 I 0.9% Others ............... ....... ... 240.0 15.0% TOTAL 1,603.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,410.0 1,480.0 1,603.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 121 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Azerbaijan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ....................... 14,657.3 45.1% 2. Georgia .... ...... ............ 1,584.4 4.9% 3. Ukraine .. ...... ... .......... 1,573.2 4.8% 4. Kazakhstan ..................... 777.2 • 2.4% 5. Uzbekistan ...................... 381.0 I 1.2% 6. Belarus ........................ 309.5 I 1.0% 7. Turkmenistan ................... 257.6 I 0.8% B. Moldova .............. .. ........ 84.6 I 0.3% 9. Kyrgyzstan ... ............. 67.5 I 0.2% 10. Tajikistan ........ ..... ....... .... 22.0 I 0.1% Others ....................... 12,800.0 ••••••••••••••• 39.4% TOTAL 32,500.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 59.7 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 28.1 29.6 32.5 Surplus (Deficit) 31.6 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 87.8 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are In millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of 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. 122 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ............................ 19.B 2. Saudi Arabia ..................... 17.7 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 13.5 ••••••••••• 12.6% 4. United Kingdom .. ......... ... .. ... 6.1 5. Kuwait ........................... 5.3 6. Qatar ........ ... ............ .... 4.5 7. United States .... .... ......... ... 4.5 ••••• 5.7% --· 5.0% ••• 4.2% •••• 4.2% B. Pakistan ......................... 4.1 9. Egypt ............................ 4.1 ::: :::~ 10. Philippines ....................... 2.2 2.1% 11. Jordan ..... .. .. ........... .. .. 2.1 2.0% 12. Bangladesh ....................... 1.B 1.7% 13. Morocco .. .. .... .. ....... .. ... 1.B • 1.6% 14. Oman ... .... .. ... ........ ... 1.B • 1.6% 15. Lebanon ......................... 1.4 • 1.3% 16. Iran .......... ... .............. 1.2 • 1.1% 17. France .... .... ................. .. 1.2 • 1.1% 1 B. Sri Lanka ...... ... ......... ...... 0.9 I 0.9% 19. Germany ... .. .. .............. ... 0.9 I O.B% 20. Syria .. ... .... .... ...... ... .. 0.9 I O.B% Others ... ....... .......... 11.3 ••••••••• 10.5% TOTAL 107.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming 125.6 182.6 Outgoing 139.5 109.2 Surplus ~Deficit) (13.9) 73.4 Total Volume 265.2 291.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Bahrain 2002 n.a. 107.1 n.a. n.a. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 123 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Barbados LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. ................. 11.1 25.2% 2. United Kingdom ........ ....... .. 6.5 14.6% 3. Guyana ..... ..... ................ 5.6 12.7% 4. Trinidad and Tobago ....... ........ 4.8 11 .0% 5. Canada .......................... 3.4 7.7% 6. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.6 l "l1ltNiW8z)l 5.8% 7. Saint Lucia ....................... 2.1 4.8% 8. Jamaica .. ... ....... ... .. 2.0 4.6% 9. Grenada ................. ....... 0.9 • 2.0% 10. Antigua and Barbuda .... .... .. 0.8 • 1.8% 11 Dominica .......... .. .......... .. 0.4 I 1.0% 12. Sa int Kitts and Nevis ... ... ... ... .. 0.4 I 1.0% 13. Cayman Islands ................... 0.3 I 0.7% 14. Bermuda .... .......... ........ ... 0.2 I 0.5% 15. Bahamas ......................... 0.2 I 0.3% 16. Netherlands Antilles ... .... .... .. 0.2 I 0.3% 17. India ..... .. .......... .......... 0.1 I 0.3% 18. Anguilla .......................... 0.1 I 0.3% Others .... .. .... ... ..... .. 2.4 5.3% TOTAL 44.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 78.8 Outgoing 32.1 37.6 44.2 Surplus jneficit) n.a. n.a. 34.6 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 123.0 Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 124 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belarus LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ...... .................. 133.6 2. Ukraine ... .. ... ..... .... ..... 25.5 10.6% 3. Germany .. ... ... .. ............ 17.7 7.3% 4. Poland .......................... 12.3 5.1% 5. Lithuania ......................... 6.9 • 2.9% Others .......................... 44.7 18.6% TOTAL 240.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 178.5 209.9 240.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of 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. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 125 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belgium LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ................ ....... .480.0 2. Netherlands ... ... ..... ... 460.0 •••••••••••••••• 20.3% ••••••••••••••• 19.4% 3. Germany ... .. .. ... ..... ... .. .. 275.0 ••••••••• 11.6% 4. United Kingdom ................ 220.0 ----- 9.3% 5. Italy ....... ....... ... .... 120.0 6. United States ......... .. ... .. 11 0.0 ••• 5.1% •••• 4.7% 7. Luxembourg .. .. ..... .. ... .. 80.0 -~ 3.4% 8. Spain ...... .. .... ....... .. .. 75.0 3.2% 9. Morocco .. ....... .. ...... ..... 55.0 2.3% 10. Switzerland ........... ..... ... 43.0 • 1.8% 11. Turkey ..... .. .. .. ..... .. 35.0 11 1.5% 12. Denmark ............ ...... .... 32.0 Ill 1.4% 13. Australia ............... .... 30.0 Ill 1.3% 14. Poland .................. .... .... 30.0 Ill 1.3% 15. Sweden ......................... 25.0 • 1.1% 16. Greece .. ...... .. .... ... .... 24.0 • 1.0% 17. Canada .. .... ..... ... ... ... 21.0 • 0.9% 18. Austria ... .. .. ...... .... ... .. 19.0 I 0.8% 19. Portugal ....... ....... ... 18.0 I 0.8% 20. Ireland ........ .. .............. 12.0 I 0.5% Others ....... ... .. ... .... ... 213.4 ----- 9.0% TOTAL 2,365.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,835.0 2,155.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlhutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 126 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 2002 n.a. 2,365.4 n.a. n..a. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Belize LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................. 6,173.9 -----------· 53.5% 2. Guatemala .................... 1,019.7 8.8% 3. Mexico ......................... 723.5 6.3% 4. Honduras ....................... 619.7 5.4% 5. El Salvador ...... ....... ....... 383.9 • 3.3% 6. United Kingdom ................ 326.9 • 2.8% 7. Canada ........................ 322.3 • 2.8% 8. Jamaica ........ .............. 159.7 1.4% 9. Costa Rica ..... ...... .... .... 149.2 1.3% 10. Panama .... ... .. ... ... ........ 149.1 1.3% 11. India ........................... 118.2 1.0% 12. Barbados ...... .. ... ........ 112.5 1.0% 13. China .......................... 103.4 0.9% 14. Cuba .... ........ .. ........ ... 99.5 0.9% 15. Nicaragua ....................... 89.8 0.8% 16. Trinidad and Tobago ............... 87.8 0.8% 17. Bahamas ....... .............. .48.0 0.4% 18. Colombia ........................ 45.7 0.4% 19. Taiwan .......................... 44.3 0.4% 20. Germany ........................ 41 .8 0.4% Others ...... .. .. .. .... .. .710.0 6.2% TOTAL 11,532.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 24.0 28.5 36.2 Outgoing 9.6 10.7 11.5 Surplus (Deficit) 14.4 17.8 24.7 Total Volume 33.6 39.1 47.8 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 127 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bolivia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ........ ... ...... 8.2 •••••••••••••••• 21 .0% 2. Argentina ...... ......... .. ..... 6.8 ••••••••••••• 17.4% 3. Peru ............................. 4.0 4. Brazil ... ............... .. ... 3.7 5. Chile 00 00 00 00 .... 00 00 00 00 00 00 003.7 •••••••• 10.2% ----- 9.5% ••••••• 9.5% 6. Colombia ...... .. .... .. ... ..... 2.6 ••••• 6.6% 7. Spain .. .. ..... .......... 1.9 ••• 4.9% 8. Ecuador 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 0.7 • 1.8% 9. Italy .... 00 00 00.00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 0.7 • 1.8% 10. Mexico 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 .. 00 .0.7 • 1.8% 11 Paraguay ... .......... ..... .... 0.6 • 1.5% 12. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.5 II 1.3% 13. China 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.5 II 1.3% 14. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.5 II 1.3% 15. United Kingdom 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 .0.5 II 1.3% 16. Uruguay 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.5 II 1.3% 17. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.4 • 1.0% 18. Venezuela 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.4 • 1.0% 19. Cuba 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.3 I 0.8% 20. France 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.3 I 0.8% Others 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 .1.6 4.1% TOTAL 39.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming 80.8 n.a. Outgoing 27.2 31.9 Surplus !Deficit) 53.6 n.a. Total Volume 107.9 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 128 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 2002 n.a. 39.1 n.a n.a. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Botswana LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa ...... .. ..... 43,020.0 2. Zimbabwe ..................... 6,320.0 9.9% 3. United Kingdom .. ..... ...... 2,390.0 • 3.7% 4. Zambia ....... ............... 2,210.0 • 3.5% 5. United States ................ .. 1 ,230.0 1.9% 6. Namibia .... ...... ... .... 1,120.0 1.8% 7. Kenya ...... ................... 650.0 1.0% 8. Malawi ................. .... .. 360.0 0.6% 9. Swaziland ..... .... ... .. ..... 340.0 0.5% 10. Australia .... .... ....... 290.0 0.5% 11 Lesotho ........................ 290.0 0.5% 12. Nigeria ......................... 180.0 0.3% 13. Ireland ......................... 160.0 0.3% 14. Mauritius ..... ... ... .. ... ... .... 150.0 0.2% 15. Mozambique .................... 150.0 0.2% 16. Germany ....................... 140.0 0.2% 17. France ......................... 130.0 0.2% 18. Sri Lanka ....................... 120.0 0.2% 19. Canada .. .................... 110.0 0.2% 20. Switzerland ..... .. .. .... .. ..... 100.0 0.2% Others .. .... .. ................ 4,170.0 6.5% TOTAL 63,735.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming n.a. 41.2 45.7 Outgoing 42.0 59.0 63.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (17.8) (18.0) Total Volume n.a. 100.2 109.5 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 129 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Brazil LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .... .... ..... ...... 266.0 ------------ 33.0% 2. Portugal ......................... 72.0 3. Argentina ....................... 56.0 ••• 8.9% ••• 6.9% 4. Italy ........................... .42.0 5.2% 5. United Kingdom ...... .. ....... ... 35.0 4.3% 6. Spain ................... ...... 34.0 4.2% 7. Germany .... ...... ............ .. 31.0 3.8% 8. France ......................... 26.0 Bl 3.2% 9. Japan ...................... .... 25.0 Biltl 3.1% 10. Chile ............................ 18.0 • 2.2% 11. Paraguay ........................ 17.0 • 2.1% 12. Uruguay ......................... 15.0 • 1.9% 13. Canada ......................... 14.0 • 1.7% 14. Bolivia .......................... 13.0 B 1.6% 15. Switzerland .... .. ........ ....... 12.0 B 1.5% 16. Mexico ............ ...... ....... 11.0 B 1.4% 17. Peru ..... .............. ....... .. 10.0 I 1.2% 18. Netherlands ...................... 7.5 I 0.9% 19. Colombia ......................... 7.0 I 0.9% 20. Venezuela ........................ 6.5 I 0.8% Others .......................... 88.0 10.9% TOTAL 806.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 Incoming 1,212.4 Outgoing 692.7 Surplus (Deficit) 519.8 Total Volume 1,905.1 2001 n.a. 772.2 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mrnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 130 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 2002 n.a. 806.0 n.a. n.a. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Bulgaria LARGEST TE.LECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Greece ..... ................. .. 19.0 2. Germany ... .. .. .. ....... ... 18.0 • • ••••••••••• 14.0% •••••••••••• 13.2% 3. Turkey .......................... 13.0 ••••••••• 9.6% 4. Italy ..................... .. ... ... 9.0 ---- 6.6% 5. Spain ............................ 7.0 5.1% 6. United Kingdom ................... 6.0 4.4% 7. France ............. ... ........ 5.0 3.7% 8. Russia .......... ..... ... .... 5.0 3.7% 9. Austria ........ .... ...... ..... ... 4.0 2.9% 10. United States .. .... ..... .......... 4.0 2.9% 11. Macedonia .... .... ............... 3.0 2.2% 12. Netherlands ... ......... ..... 3.0 2.2% 13. Serbia and Montenegro ............ 3.0 2.2% 14. Belgium ......... ....... ......... 2.0 • 1.5% 15. Israel ............................ 2.0 • 1.5% 16. Romania ......................... 2.0 • 1.5% 17. Switzerland ....................... 2.0 • 1.5% 18. Ukraine .............. ..... ....... 2.0 • 1.5% 19. Czech Republic .... ........ ...... 1.6 • 1.2% 20. Cyprus ........................... 1.5 • 1.1% Others .......... .... ........ .. 23.9 ••••• ••••••••••• 17.6% TOTAL 136.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 211.0 220.0 213.0 Outgoing 110.0 125.0 136.0 Surplus ~Deficit) 101.0 95.0 77.0 Total Volume 321.0 345.0 349.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 131 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Burkina Faso LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Cote dlvoire ................... 3,720.6 ••••••••••••••••• 22.2% 2. France ........ ..... ......... 3,081.6 •••••••••••••• 18.4% 3. Senegal ...... .... ........... 2,003.0 ••••••• 11.9% 4. Togo ......................... 1,202.1 5. Mali ........................... 996.2 6. Benin .......................... 625.8 ••••• 7.2% •••• 5.9% •• 3.7% 7. Niger .......................... 416.2 2.5% 8. Belgium ........... ..... ... .. 364.2 2.2% 9. Switzerland .................... 335.7 2.0% 10. Italy ........................... 287.8 • 1.7% 11. United States ................... 275.4 • 1.6% 12. Germany ....................... 223.1 • 1.3% 13. Netherlands .................... 215.0 • 1.3% 14. Nigeria ......................... 195.8 • 1.2% 15. Canada ....................... 165.1 I 1.0% 16. Lebanon ... ...... ... .... ....... 162.1 I 1.0% 17. Cameroon .... .... .. .... ... 161.4 I 1.0% 18. Gabon ......................... 152.7 I 0.9% 19. Spain ................ .. ........ 140.1 I 0.8% 20. Morocco ....................... 138.6 I 0.8% Others ............ ...... .. .. 1,920.0 11.4% TOTAL 16,789.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 10.6 8.7 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2002 n.a. 16.8 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are In millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 132 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Burundi LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Belgium .......................... 0.6 20.9% 2. France .. ........... ........... 0.3 11 .5% 3. South Africa .............. ..... 0.2 8.5% 4. Kenya ............................ 0.2 8.4% 5. United States ... .. ..... ..... 0.2 5.4% 6. United Kingdom ................... 0.1 4.8% 7. Tanzania .. .. .... .. .... ... ....... 0.1 4.4% 8. Canada .... ..... .. ... .......... 0.1 4.2% 9. Switzerland ..... .. .... 0.1 3.3% 10. Italy ....... .. .................... 0.1 3.3% 11 Netherlands ..... ... .. ......... 0.1 11111111 3.1% 12. Germany ... .. ... ..... ... .. .... 0.0 • 1.7% 13. Senegal ..... .................. 0.0 • 1.5% 14. Greece ..... .. ... .. ....... ... 0.0 • 1.4% 15. India ......... .. ..... .. ... ... 0.0 • 1.1% 16. Sweden ....... .... .... .. ........ 0.0 • 1.0% 17. Denmark ... .. ... .. .... ... .. .. 0.0 • 1.0% 18. Ethiopia ... .. ...... ...... .. .... 0.0 • 1.0% 19. Cote dlvoire ...................... 0.0 • 0.9% 20. Mali ...... .... ....... .... .. .. 0.0 I 0.8% Others ........ .... ......... .. ... 0.3 ••••••• 12.0% TOTAL 2.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 4.4 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2.9 3.0 2.8 Surplus !Deficit) 1.5 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 7.3 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 133 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Canada LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................. 6,000.0 •••••••••••••••• 73.3% 2. United Kingdom ................. 420.0 • 5.1% 3. Hong Kong ......... .. .... ..... 148.0 I 1.8% 4. India ..... ...... .............. 136.0 I 1.7% 5. France ......................... 120.0 I 1.5% 6. Philippines .. .................... 120.0 I 1.5% 7. Italy ...... ..................... 115.0 I 1.4% B. Germany .............. ..... .... 110.0 1 1.3% 9. Australia .. .. .. .. ...... ..... .... 65.0 I 0.8% 10. Mexico ... .. ...... .... ... .. .... 65.0 I 0.8% Others ... .. .......... .. ....... 889.0 10.9% TOTAL 8,183.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 7,224.0 7,915.0 8,183.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mfnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 134 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cayman Islands LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Jamaica .................. .... 13.1 2. United States ..... .. .. .. .... 11 .2 3. Canada ...... .......... .. 2.7 4. United Kingdom ...... .. .... ..... 2.3 5. Barbados ......... ........ 1.1 6. Honduras ....... .... ... ... .. .. .. 0.7 7. Trinidad and Tobago .. ....... 0.7 8. Bermuda ..... ... ..... .. .... .. 0.3 9. Brazil .... ... ......... ...... 0.2 10. India ................... .... .. 0.2 11. Bahamas ............. .. .... 0.2 12. Philippines ... ... ............ .. 0.2 13. Antigua and Barbuda ... ......... .. 0.1 14. Saint Lucia ... .... ...... .. ... 0.1 15. Guyana .. ........................ 0.1 16. Ireland ......... ...... ....... 0.1 17. Switzerland ... .. ......... 0.1 18. Costa Rica ............ .. .. ....... 0.1 -- 7.8% ••• 6.7% • 3.3% • 2.1% • 1.9% 1 1.0% I o.1% I o.6% I o.5% I o.5% I o.4% I o.3% I o.3% I o.3% I o.3% I o.2% Others ........................... 0.8 • 2.4% TOTAL 34.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 Incoming 27.3 Outgoing 42.0 Surplus (Deficit) (14.7) Total Volume 69.3 2001 n.a. 40.6 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 2002 37.0 34.7 2.3 71.8 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 135 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Chile LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0086.7 29.5% 2. Argentina ....................... 36.8 12.5% 3. Peru ... .................... .... 21 .8 7.4% 4. Spain ...... .. ..... ... .. ........ 16.8 5.7% 5. Brazil ...................... 00 ... 15.7 5.3% 6. Mexico ............. ......... .. 8.0 2.7% 7. Colombia .. 00. 00 00 00 00 00. 00 .. 00 00 .7.7 2.6% 8. Ecuador .. ... .. ........ .. ........ 6.8 • 2.3% 9. Bolivia .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6.4 1111 2.2% 10. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .6.0 • 2.0% 11. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 005.7 • 1.9% 12. France 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.1 • 1.7% 13. Venezuela 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 .4.7 • 1.6% 14. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .4.5 • 1.5% 15. United Kingdom ................... 4.4 • 1.5% 16. Uruguay 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 003.0 I 1.0% 17. Australia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.7 I 0.9% 18. Japan ............................ 2.7 I 0.9% 19. Sweden 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2.2 I 0.8% 20. Paraguay 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.6 I 0.5% Others .......................... 45.1 •••••••• 15.3% TOTAL 294.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 261.4 281.2 294.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 136 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS China LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Hong Kong ...... ..... .... ..... 882.0 39.4% 2. Taiwan ......................... 373.0 16.7% 3. Japan ... ... .... .... ... 190.0 8.5% 4. United States .................... 80.0 3.6% 5. Korea, Rep ................. ..... 66.0 • 2.9% 6. Macau .. .... ... ... ... ... .... 55.0 B 2.5% 7. Singapore .......... ............ 51 .0 • 2.3% 8. United Kingdom ................. 47.0 B 2.1% 9. Australia ......... ...... .. ...... 25.0 1 1.1% 10. Canada ....... ..... ....... 25.0 I 1.1% 11 Germany ... ..... .. ........ ..... 24.0 I 1.1% 12. France .. ..... .. .... ..... .... 18.0 I 0.8% 13. Italy ..... .... ....... .......... 14.0 I 0.6% 14. Malaysia .... ..... ... .. .. .. 12.0 I 0.5% 15. Russia .......................... 11.0 I 0.5% Others ... ..... .. ...... ..... 367.0 16.4% TOTAL 2,240.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 3,500.0 4,270.0 n.a. Outgoing 1,850.0 2,040.0 2,240.0 Surplus (Deficit) 1,650.0 2,230.0 n.a. Total Volume 5,350.0 6,310.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Data are for PSTN traffic only. VoiP traffic accounted for over one billion minutes of additional call volumes from China in 2001 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 137 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Costa Rica LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... .... ... ... 45.9 •••••••••••••••• 35.5% 2. Nicaragua .... .. .. .. 24.0 ------ 18.5% 3. Panama .. ... .. ... ... 6.2 4.8% 4. Mexico .. ....... ... .. ....... 5.1 3.9% 5. El Salvador .. ..... .. .. .. 4.9 3.8% 6. Guatemala ............. .......... 4.0 3.1% 7. Colombia ...... .......... .. .... 3.7 • 2.8% 8. Honduras ...... ... .. .... .. .... 3.4 • 2.6% 9. Canada ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ...... 3.2 • 2.5% 10. Spain ........................ .. 1.7 1 1.3% 11 Cuba .... .. ...................... 1.6 I 1.2% 12. Argentina ...... ............... 1.4 1 1.1% 13. Venezuela ........ .. ... .... ..... 1.4 1 1.1% 14. Peru .... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. 1.2 I o.9% 15. Chile .. .. .................... .. ... 1.1 I o.8% 16. Italy .. ......................... 0.9 I o.1% 17. Dominican Republic .. .. .. ....... 0.8 I o.6% 18. United Kingdom .. .... .. .... .. ... 0.8 I o.6% 19. France .... ... .. ....... .. ..... .. 0.8 I o.6% 20. Germany ..... ...... .. ... ... 0.7 I o.5% Others .. .. .. ......... ......... 10.5 8.1% TOTAL 129.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 137.8 165.5 158.5 Outgoing 99.6 131.4 129.4 Surplus (Deficit) 38.2 34.1 29.1 Total Volume 237.4 296.9 287.9 Note: Data are in millions of rnlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 138 TE LEGEOGRAPH Y 2004 © PR I METRICA I N C. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cuba Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..................... 2.9 15.1% 2. Spain .... ... ............ ... 2.6 13.8% 3. Canada ........ ... .............. 2.0 10.6% 4. Italy ........ ....... .. ....... .... 1.8 9.4% 5. Mexico .......................... 1.5 8.0% 6. France ............. ....... .... 1.3 6.8% 7. Germany ......... .... .. ... ... 0.6 3.3% 8. United Kingdom .. ... ....... ...... 0.5 2.7% 9. Venezuela ......... .. .... .... .. 0.4 2.3% 10. Netherlands ................ .. .... 0.4 1.9% 11 Panama .......................... 0.3 1.7% 12. Dominican Republic .... .... 0.3 1.6% 13. Brazil .................... ........ 0.3 1.5% 14. Portugal ......... ................. 0.3 Ill 1.5% 15. Switzerland ..... ........ .. .... 0.2 • 1.2% 16. Colombia ......................... 0.2 • 1.2% 17. Chile ............................. 0.2 • 1.1% 18. Jamaica ......................... 0.2 • 1.0% 19. Russia ........................... 0.2 • 0.9% 20. Argentina ...... .... ... ........ 0.2 • 0.9% Others .... ..... .... .......... 2.6 IMMIJII II ¢111111MMIIII.~IIIIImliil"¢¢ili4IWIJ. ·1 13.5% TOTAL 19.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 284.4 258.0 282.9 Outgoing 20.6 22.4 19.2 Surplus (Deficit) 263.8 235.5 263.7 Total Volume 304.9 280.4 302.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 139 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Cyprus LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Greece ........ ........ .... ... 82.8 1•1-II~I·IIIMMM•••••I•I""I"IIIIm••l·l~lll~l&il\::l:~~~,···· 32.6% 2. United Kingdom ....... .... .. ... 70.2 27.7% 3. United States .. ...... .... .. 11.4 4.5% 4. Russia ...... .. ..... ... ...... 10.7 4.2% 5. Bulgaria ...... .. ..... .... .... 5.8 • 2.3% 6. Romania ......... ............... 5.2 • 2.1% 7. Germany .. ... .. .. ........ 4.9 • 1.9% 8. Ukraine .. .... .... ..... .. ........ 4.6 • 1.8% 9. Lebanon .. .. ..... ... ... ..... 3.6 II 1.4% 10. Italy .. .............. ........... 2.7 I 1.1% 11. Syria ... .. .... .. ..... .. ... .. .. 2.6 I 1.0% 12. Philippines ......... ............. 2.5 I 1.0% 13. France .. .. ... ..... ........ .. 2.4 I 0.9% 14. Egypt .. .. .. .......... .. .......... 2.3 I 0.9% 15. Serbia and Montenegro .......... 2.3 I 0.9% 16. Sri Lanka ......................... 2.3 I 0.9% 17. Switzerland ...... ... .. ... .. ... 2.3 I 0.9% 18. Israel ..... .. ...... ............... 2.2 I 0.9% 19. Netherlands ..... ..... .. ... 2.0 I 0.8% 20. Sweden .. .. .. .. ......... .. .. 1.9 I 0.7% Others ..... .. .. .. .... .... 28.9 ••••• 1 11.4% TOTAL 253.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 159.7 166.7 163.7 Outgoing 192.6 220.2 253.6 Surplus (Deficit) (32.9) (53.5) (89.9) Total Volume 352.3 386.9 41.7.3 Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 140 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Czech Republic LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ....................... 115.0 24.2% 2. Slovak Republic ..... ....... ...... 95.0 20.0% 3. Austria .......................... 34.0 7.2% 4. United Kingdom ....... ...... 29.0 6.1% 5. Poland ... ..... ... ... ...... ... 21 .0 4.4% 6. France .. ..... ................ 19.0 4.0% 7. Italy ............................ 19.0 4.0% 8. United States .. ... ........ .... .. 15.0 3.2% 9. Netherlands ......... .. .... ... ... 14.0 IIIII 2.9% 10. Switzerland ........... .......... 13.0 2.7% 11. Ukraine ......... ............ .. 13.0 2.7% 12. Croatia ......... ...... ........ .... 9.0 • 1.9% 13. Russia ........................... 9.0 • 1.9% 14. Hungary ... ..................... 8.5 • 1.8% 15. Spain ............................ 8.0 • 1.7% 16. Belgium .... ............ .. .. ..... 6.5 • 1.4% 17. Sweden .. .......... ............ 5.5 • 1.2% 18. Greece ........ .................. 4.5 I 0.9% 19. Denmark ...... .... .... .......... 3.5 I 0.7% 20. Belarus .......................... 3.0 I 0.6% Others .................... ... 30.5 11111118 6.4% TOTAL 475.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 580.0 Outgoing 359.9 424.4 475.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 105.0 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 1,055.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 141 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Denmark LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00.198.0 •••••••••••••••• 18.9% 2. Germany 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.163.0 ••••••••••••• 15.5% 3. United Kingdom ................. 114.0 4. Norway .... ... .... ...... ... ... 107.0 ••••••••• 10.9% ••••••••• 10.2% 5. United States .... ... .... ... .... .. 55.0 6. France ........ ... ... .... .. ...... 43.0 •••• 5.2% ••• 4.1% 7. Netherlands ........... ..... .. ... 38.0 3.6% 8. Spain 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 26.0 2.5% 9. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 • 00 00 00 .. 00 00 24.0 2.3% 10. Belgium 00 .. 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 •.. 00 17.0 B 1.6% 11 Finland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0017.0 B 1.6% 12. Turkey 00 .. 00 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00.17.0 B 1.6% 13. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .• 00 0016.0 B 1.5% 14. Iceland 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 9.0 I 0.9% 15. Canada .......................... 7.0 I 0.7% 16. Greece ........ .... ....... ...... .7 .0 I 0.7% 17. Australia 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 006.0 I 0.6% 18. Ireland ........................... 6.0 I 0.6% 19. Portugal 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 .. 00 .4.0 I 0.4% Others .. .......... ............ 160.0 ••••••••••••• 15.2% TOTAL 1.050.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 905.0 995.0 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 2002 n.a. 1,050.0 n.a. n.a. 142 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Djibouti LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ..... .. .. ..... ....... 1.8 ___________________ ..,;, __ ..... 31 .0% 2. Ethiopia .. ........ ............. 1.2 ••••••••••• 21.6% 3. Yemen .. .. ............. .... .. 0.4 ••• 7.2% 4. Germany ......... ....... ....... 0.3 5.6% 5. United Arab Emirates ....... ... .... 0.2 3.6% 6. Somalia ....... .... ... 0 •• o ••••••• 0.2 3.2% 7. Saudi Arabia .... ..... 0 • • 0 • •• •••• 0.1 • 2.4% 8. Canada ... ...... 0 • •• • • ••• •••• • ••• 0.1 • 2.4% 9. United Kingdom ... 0 ••• •• 0 •••• • • • •• 0.1 • 2.3% 10. United States ... ... ..... 0 • ••• ••••• 0.1 • 2.2% 11. Belgium .... 0 •••• • •••• •••••• 0.1 I 1.4% 12. Egypt ...... 0 • ••••••••• 0 • ••••••• •• 0.1 I 1.2% 13. Kenya ......... .. o 0 ••••••• •• ••••• 0.1 I 1.0% 14. Netherlands 0 •• ••• •• •••••• • •• • •••• 0.1 I 0.9% 15. Eritrea .. ..... .. .. 0 ••• 0 •••• • ••• 0.0 I 0.8% 16. Italy ........ .. ......... .. ...... 0.0 I 0.8% 17. Senegal .......................... 0.0 I 0.5% 18. Norway ......... .. ........ ....... 0.0 I 0.5% 19. India ............................. 0.0 I 0.5% 20. Switzerland ....................... 0.0 I 0.4% Others .. ... .... ..... ... ...... 0.6 10.5% TOTAL 507 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 1202 noao noao Outgoing 405 308 5.7 Surplus !Deficit) 706 noao noao Total Volume 16.7 noao noao Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 143 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Dominican Republic LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ........ .. .. .. .. 160.0 11111111111111111111111111111111 71.9% 2. Spain ... .. .. ..... .. .... 10.0 • 4.5% 3. Italy ........................... 5.0 I 2.2% 4. Canada .. ... .......... .. ... ... .4.1 1 1.8% 5. Venezuela .. .... ... ... .. .... 3.6 I 1.6% 6. Haiti ......... ... .. ... ... 3.2 1.4% 7. Germany ... .... ..... .. ... 3.1 1.4% 8. Mexico .. .. ... ...... ..... ... .... 2.8 1.3% 9. Colombia .... .. ... ... ........ 2.6 1.2% 10. Netherlands Antilles ..... ......... 2.5 1.1 % 11. United Kingdom ................... 2.5 1.1% 12. France ..................... .. .. 2.3 1.0% 13. Cuba ............... .. ........... 2.1 0.9% 14. Switzerland .. .................... 2.0 0.9% 15. Argentina ... ... ................. 1.9 0.9% 16. Panama ................... ...... 1.4 0.6% 17. Chile ... ..... ...... .. ..... .... .. 1.1 0.5% 18. Netherlands ........ ... .... ..... 1.1 0.5% 19. Costa Rica ........................ 1.0 I 0.4% 20. Guatemala ..... .... ... ... 0.8 I 0.4% Others ... .... ...... .... 9.5 • 4.3% TOTAL 222.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 1,340.0 1,714.6 n.a. Outgoing 211.7 227.4 222.6 Surplus (Deficit) 1,128.3 1,487.2 n.a. Total Volume 1,551.7 1,942.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mfhutes of publ ic switched telecommunications traffic. 144 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Egypt LARGEsT TEL E c 0 M M u N I cAT I 0 N s R 0 u T E s I 2 0 0 2 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia .... .... ..... .. ... 52.0 26.2% 2. United Arab Emirates .......... 17.4 8.8% 3. Kuwait ... .... ... .... 15.6 7.9% 4. United States ............. ... 15.0 7.6% 5. United Kingdom .... ... ...... 13.9 7.0% 6. Italy ... .... ... ... ... .... 12.6 6.4% 7. France ........................... 9.6 4.8% 8. Germany .... .......... ..... ..... 9.6 4.8% 9. Lebanon ......................... 6.6 3.3% 10. Jordan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5.2 Ill 2.6% 11. Qatar 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo4.0 • 2.0% 12. Syria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 003.9 • 2.0% 13. Libya 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 003.8 • 1.9% 14. Sudan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .3.6 • 1.8% 15. Netherlands ...... .. .. ... ......... 2.8 • 1.4% 16. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .2.8 • 1.4% 17. Morocco .. ... .... ........ 2.7 • 1.4% 18. Canada ... ........... .. ......... 2.5 • 1.3% 19. Greece ...... ................... 2.3 • 1.2% 20. Bahrain .......................... 2.2 • 1.1% Others .. .... ... .. ...... .. .... 1 0.3 ••• 5.2% TOTAL 198.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 620.6 n.a. 938.3 Outgoing 183.1 192.3 198.4 Surplus (Deficit) 437.5 n.a. 739.9 Total Volume 803.7 n.a. 1,136.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 145 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Eritrea LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Italy ........................... 687.7 2. Saudi Arabia .................... 516.6 3. United States ... ..... .. ... ... 494.3 4. United Kingdom ......... ...... 258.6 5. Sudan .... ..... ..... .. .. ... 236.1 6. Germany .... ..... .. ...... .. 226.4 7. Kenya .................... .. .. 166.1 8. Egypt .......................... 118.4 9. India .......................... 114.5 -------- 15.4% ------ 11 .5% •••••• 11 .0% •••• 5.8% ••• 5.3% ••• 5.1% -· 3.7% 2.6% 2.6% 10. Netherlands .................... 109.3 2.4% 11. Sweden ........ ............ .... 102.2 2.3% 12. South Africa ... ... ..... ......... .70.8 • 1.6% 13. Djibouti .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ..... 67.0 • 1.5% 14. Korea, Rep ....... ..... ......... 55.4 • 1.2% 15. France .. ... ................ ... .. 53.8 • 1.2% 16. Switzerland ...................... 51.3 • 1.1% 17. Canada ......................... 46.5 I 1.0% 18. Denmark ........................ 37.6 I 0.8% 19. Norway ......................... 33.0 I 0.7% 20. Libya ... .......... .... ........ .. 28.0 I 0.6% Others .. ...... ............. .. 1,000.0 •••••••••••••••• 22.3% TOTAL 4,480.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 17.9 22.7 25.1 Outgoing 2.9 3.6 4.5 Surplus !Deficit) 15.0 19.1 20.6 Total Volume 20.8 26.2 29.6 Note: National traffic data are rn millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 146 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Estonia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Finland ........... .. ... .. .. .. 32.3 31.3% 2. Russia .......................... 15.0 14.5% 3. Sweden ....... 0 .............. ... 10.0 9.7% 4. Germany .. ..... ... .... 0 • • ••• •• 5.7 5.5% 5. United Kingdom ...... ........... 5.1 4.9% 6. Latvia ............................ 4.9 4.7% 7. Lithuania ......... 0 ••••••••••••••• 4.9 4.7% 8. Norway .......................... 3.9 3.8% 9. Netherlands .. .... .............. 2.9 • 2.8% 10. United States ..................... 2.9 • 2.8% 11 Ukraine ................ ...... .... 2.7 • 2.6% 12. Denmark ............ 0 ••• 0 •••••••• 2.3 • 2.2% 13. Italy ............................. 1.3 • 1.3% 14. Belarus ....................... .. 1.2 I 1.2% 15. France ........................... 1.2 I 1.2% 16. Poland ........................... 1.1 I 1.1% 17. Spain ..................... ...... 0.9 I 0.9% 18. Belgium .......................... 0.7 I 0.7% 19. Austria ...... .... ................. 0.5 I 0.5% 20. Canada ... ...... ............... 0.5 I 0.5% Others ...... ... ...... ....... 3.2 3.1% TOTAL 103o2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming noao 91.9 noao Outgoing 7505 93.2 10302 Surplus (Deficit) n.ao (103) noao Total Volume n.a. 18501 noao Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 147 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ethiopia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ............... .. 1 ,569.0 •••••••• 12.2% 2. Kenya .. ..... .. ..... 1,030.7 ---· 8.0% 3. Djibouti ......... ........... 900.3 7.0% 4. Italy .. ........ .............. 813.8 6.3% 5. SaudiArabia ................... .789.9 6.1% 6. United Kingdom .. .. .. ... .. 777.4 6.0% 7. United Arab Emirates .... ........ 713.2 5.5% 8. Germany ...... ... ... .. ...... 470.7 3.7% 9. South Africa .................... 418.1 3.2% 10. France .... .... .. ... 386.8 3.0% 11 India ............•............ 362.7 2.8% 12. Switzerland .. ... ... ... .... 359.4 2.8% 13. Netherlands .......... .. .. .. 216.0 • 1.7% 14. Egypt ... .... .. .. ... .. 203.0 • 1.6% 15. Yemen .................. 200.7 • 1.6% 16. Sudan ....... ................. 163.2 • 1.3% 17. Canada ... .. ..... ... ..... 158.7 • 1.2% 18. Sweden .. .... ... .... .... .. 128.0 • 1.0% 19. Belgium .. .... .. ... ...... 126.1 • 1.0% 20. Nigeria ... .... .. ............. 110.7 I 0.9% Others .. ... .................. 2,980.0 •••••••••••••••• 23.1% TOTAL 12,880.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 51.2 43.3 34.3 Outgoing 13.4 13.4 12.9 Surplus IQeficit) 37.7 29.8 21.4 Total Volume 64.6 56.7 47.2 Note: National traffic data are "In millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 148 TELE GEOGRAPH Y 2004 © PRIMETRICA IN C. 200 3 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Finland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 ------------~--~~----~--~~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden ............. ... ... ... 155.0 2. Germany ........................ 45.0 3. United Kingdom .................. 41 .0 4. Estonia ...... ..... ..... .... 35.0 5. Russia ........ ... .... .. ....... 30.0 6.1% 6. Norway 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 21 .0 4.3% 7. United States ...... ...... .. .... 20.0 4.1% 8. Spain 00 00. 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 16.0 3.3% 9. Denmark ........................ 15.0 3.1% 10. France ......... .. ..... ..... 15.0 3.1% 11 Netherlands 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 0012.0 • 2.4% 12. Italy ........ ................. 11 .0 • 2.2% 13. Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 008.0 • 1.6% 14. Switzerland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .8.0 • 1.6% 15. Austria .................. 00 .... ... 5.0 I 1.0% 16. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 .... 4.0 I 0.8% 17. China ..... 00 ........... 00 .... 00 .. 4.0 I 0.8% 18. Greece 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 004.0 I 0.8% 19. Poland 00 00 00 .... 00 00 00 00 ..... 00 .. 4.0 I 0.8% 20. Turkey 00 00. 00 ... 00 00 .. 00 00. 00. 003.0 I 0.6% Others .......................... 34.0 6.9% TOTAL 490.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 468.0 485.0 490.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 149 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS France LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ................. 680.0 2. Germany ....................... 650.0 3. Belgium ....... ......... ....... 560.0 4. Morocco ....................... 560.0 5. Italy ..... ..... ... ............. 550.0 6. United States ..... .. .. ......... 490.0 7. Switzerland ......... .. .... ..... 450.0 8. Spain ... .................. .. .. 440.0 9. Algeria ... ........ ... ........ 420.0 10. Portugal ... ........ ............ 320.0 11. Tunisia ........................ 300.0 ---- 8.3% •••••• 8.0% •••• 6.9% •••• 6.9% ••••• 6.7% --- 6.0% •••• 5.5% : ::: 5.4% 5.1% ••• 3.9% •• 3.7% 12. Netherlands ........... ...... 225.0 2.8% 13. Canada .. .... ....... ......... 170.0 2.1% 14. Turkey ......................... 135.0 • 1.7% 15. Poland .. ... .. ..... .. .. ..... 110.0 • 1.3% 16. Monaco .................. .. .... 105.0 • 1.3% 17. Senegal ....... .. ...... .. ..... .. 85.0 I 1.0% 18. Luxembourg ...... ..... .... .... 80.0 I 1.0% 19. Sweden .. .... ....... ..... ... 55.0 I 0.7% 20. Romania ........................ 45.0 I 0.6% Others ...... ... .. .. .. .... ... 1,740.0 21.3% TOTAL 8,170.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a n.a. n.a. Outgoing 6,500.0 7,605.0 8,170.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. l).a. Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 150 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Gabon Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France .... .. .. .. .... .. .. ...... .. 8.1 29.4% 2. Senegal .......................... 2.4 8.8% 3. Mali ............................. 2.3 8.5% 4. Cameroon .. ... ..... .. .. .... 2.1 7.5% 5. Benin ............................ 2.0 7.3% 6. Cote dlvoire .. .... ...... ....... .. 1.4 1*0 5.2% 7. Lebanon .... .. .. ..... .... 0.5 • 2.0% 8. United States .... .. ...... ... .... 0.5 • 1.9% 9. Equatorial Guinea ..... ... ....... 0.5 • 1.8% 10. Morocco ......................... 0.5 • 1.8% 11. Congo, Rep .. ........ ...... ... ... 0.5 • 1.8% 12. Mauritania ..... ................. 0.4 I 1.4% 13. Burkina Faso ...................... 0.4 I 1.4% 14. United Kingdom ..... .......... .. 0.3 1 1.3% 15. Italy .. .... ... ......... 0.3 I 1.1% 16. Belgium ........ ... ........ .. ... 0.3 I 1.1% 17. South Africa .......... ........... 0.3 I 1.1% 18. Germany ......................... 0.3 I 1.0% 19. Canada ...... ........... .. 0.2 I 0.8% 20. Nigeria ........................... 0.2 I 0.8% Others ........................... 3.9 •••••••• 14.1% TOTAL 27.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 22.0 25.0 27.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEG EO G RAP HY 2004 151 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Gambia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Senegal ....................... 4,688.8 •••••••••••• 34.8% 2. United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2,705.7 • •••••• 20.1% 3. United States 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2,163.0 •••••• 16.0% 4. Canada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1,287.8 9.6% 5. France 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.353.8 • 2.6% 6. Nigeria ........... .. ... ... .... 185.6 I 1.4% 7. Germany 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.183.5 I 1.4% 8. Sierra Leone 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 00.1 51 .3 I 1.1% 9. Lebanon 0 00 .. 00 .. 00 .. 00.00 00 00 0143.5 I 1.1% 10. Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.142.7 I 1.1% 11 Mauritania ........ .... ....... 138.7 I 1.0% 12. Netherlands 0 00 00 0 00 .. 00 00 00 .. 00.82.1 I 0.6% 13. Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .69.9 I 0.5% 14. Switzerland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .45.8 I 0.3% 15. Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .44.3 I 0.3% 16. Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .43.9 I 0.3% 17. Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .42.4 I 0.3% 18. Mali 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .35.5 I 0.3% 19. Saudi Arabia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .35.2 I 0.3% 20. Denmark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .34.7 I 0.3% Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .900.0 6.7% TOTAL 13,484.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 6.7 7.1 13.5 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. IJ.8. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Traffic totals for 2000 and 2001 excluded some cross-border traffic to Senegal. 152 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Georgia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 ------------------------------~-------d Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ....................... 66,700.0 2. Azerbaijan ................... .7,100.0 -6.2% 3. Armenia .. .............. ..... 5,500.0 • 4.8% 4. Ukraine .......... .. .. .. 5,100.0 • 4.5% 5. Turkey ........................ 2,900.0 I 2.5% 6. Greece .. .. ... .. ... .. ...... 1,500.0 I 1.3% 7. Germany ...................... 1,300.0 I 1.1% B. Kazakhstan .......... .... ..... 1,200.0 I 1.0% 9. Belarus .... ... ....... ... ... 900.0 I 0.8% 10. United Kingdom ........... .. .... 800.0 I 0.7% 11. United States ........... .. .... 800.0 I 0.7% 12. Italy .. .. ... ...... ......... 500.0 I 0.4% 13. Spain ..... ... ... .. .......... .. 500.0 I 0.4% 14. Uzbekistan ......... ... .. .. .400.0 I 0.3% 15. France ... ............ ...... .. 300.0 I 0.3% 16. Portugal .... .. ... ........ .... 300.0 I 0.3% 17. Turkmenistan .... ........ ... 300.0 I 0.3% 18. Austria ...... ..... ......... 200.0 I 0.2% 19. Belgium .. ......... .... ... ... 200.0 I 0.2% 20. Moldova .... ........ .... ..... 200.0 I 0.2% Others .... ... .......... ... .. 17,700.0 Ill & I 15.5% TOTAL 114,400.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 37.6 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 45.6 105.0 114.4 Surplus (Deficit) (8.0) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 83.2 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Total traffic for 2000 reflect traffic from Sakartvelos Telecomi only. The "Others" category may include routes to non-members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that rank among the top destinations for outgoing traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEG EO G RAP HY 2004 153 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Germany LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .......... ..... 770.0 2. France ... ... ........ .. ....... 740.0 3. Austria .... .. .... .. .... .. 695.0 4. United States ...... .... ......... 695.0 5. Italy .... .... .. .. .. ....... 680.0 6. Poland .... ....... ... ... .. 670.0 7. Switzerland .. .. ... ... ... .... 650.0 8. Turkey ... .. ... .... ..... 600.0 •••• 7.3% --- 7.0% --- 6.5% •••• 6.5% •••• 6.4% •••• 6.3% ••• 6.1% : ::: 5.6% 9. Netherlands .......... .... .. 555.0 5.2% 10. Spain .......................... 390.0 3.7% 11. Belgium ....... .. .. .... ........ 250.0 2.4% 12. Greece ........ ..... ..... .. 195.0 • 1.8% 13. Denmark ............ .. .... .... 185.0 • 1.7% 14. Croatia ...... .. 165.0 • 1.6% 15. Czech Republic .................. 165.0 • 1.6% 16. Hungary .............. ......... 150.0 • 1.4% 17. Russia ........ .... .. ...... ... 150.0 • 1.4% 18. Serbia and Montenegro .. ......... 150.0 • 1.4% 19. Canada ...... ...... .. ..... 130.0 • 1.2% 20. Sweden ... ..... ..... ...... 130.0 • 1.2% Others ........... ... ..... .. 2,505.0 TOTAL 10,620.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 Incoming n.a. 2001 n.a. Outgoing 9,570.0 10,320.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mfnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 154 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 2002 n.a. 10,620.0 n.a n.a. © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ghana LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ...... ... .. ....... 23.7 2. United States ..... ..... ........ 23.0 3. Germany .. .. .. ... .... .... .4.0 6.8% 4. Canada ...................... ... 2.0 • 3.5% 5. France ........................... 1.0 I 1.7% 6. Italy .. ..... ... .... .... .. .. 0.8 I 1.4% 7. Netherlands ...................... 0.7 I 1.2% 8. Togo .... ............. .. ..... 0.6 I 1.0% 9. Burkina Faso .. .............. .... 0.4 I 0.7% 10. Nigeria ............. ..... .... ... 0.3 I 0.5% 11. Belgium .... ... ... .... .... .. 0.2 I 0.3% 12. Senegal ... .. .. .. ........... 0.1 I 0.2% 13. Japan .... .. .... .... .. ...... 0.1 I 0.2% 14. Guinea .... ... ................. 0.0 I 0.1% 15. Gabon .. .... .. .... 0.0 I 0.1% 16. Cameroon ...... ... .. .. 0.0 I 0.1% 17. Korea, Rep .... .. ......... ........ 0.0 I 0.1% 18. Norway ..... ............ .. .... 0.0 I 0.1 % 19. Malaysia .................... .... 0.0 I 0.1% Others .... ... ......... .. .. 1.4 • 2.3% TOTAL 58.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 166.4 139.3 153.0 Outgoing 42.1 46.7 58.3 Surplus (Deficit) 124.3 92.5 94.7 Total Volume 208.4 186.0 211.3 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 155 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Greece LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... ..... ... 140.0 14.0% 2. United Kingdom .. .. ... ..... .. 140.0 14.0% 3. Albania ........................ 105.0 10.5% 4. Italy ............................ 80.0 8.0% 5. United States .................... 61.0 6.1% 6. Bulgaria ......................... 45.0 4.5% 7. Cyprus ...... ......... .. ..... .42.0 4.2% 8. France ................ .... ..... 40.0 4.0% 9. Romania ....... ..... .. .. ... 37.0 3.7% 10. Netherlands ..................... 24.0 f 4 IM 2.4% 11. Belgium ......................... 21.0 2.1% 12. Serbia and Montenegro ......... .. 19.0 1.9% 13. Switzerland ............ ......... 19.0 1.9% 14. Ukraine ... ..... .. .. .... .. ..... 19.0 1.9% 15. Russia ... ... .. ... ... .. 18.0 1.8% 16. Australia ........................ 15.0 1.5% 17. Turkey .......................... 15.0 1.5% 18. Poland ........................ 14.0 E 1.4% 19. Sweden ......................... 14.0 E 1.4% 20. Canada ............ .... ......... 13.0 1.3% Others ................... .. ... 117.0 ·········- 11 .7% TOTAL 998.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 889.8 891.0 n.a. Outgoing 793.2 887.0 998.0 Surplus (Deficit) 96.6 4.0 n.a. Total Volume 1,683.0 1,778.0 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 156 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Grenada LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 22.1 2. Trinidad and Tobago ................ 2.8 9.6% 3. Barbados ......................... 0.9 I 3.0% 4. United Kingdom ................... 0.6 2.1% 5. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ... 0.5 1.6% 6. Canada .......... ........... .... 0.4 1.4% 7. Saint Lucia ...... ...... ........... 0.4 1.2% 8. Guyana .......................... 0.3 0.9% 9. Jamaica ..... .. .. .. .. ........ 0.2 0.8% 10. Antigua and Barbuda ............... 0.2 0.6% 11. Saint Kitts and Nevis ............... 0.1 0.4% 12. Cuba ............................ 0.1 0.3% 13. Dominica ..... ... ..... ... .... ... 0.0 0.1% 14. Germany ... ....... ... ......... .. 0.0 0.1% 15. India .. .... ..... ..... .. .. ..... 0.0 0.1% 16. Bermuda ......................... 0.0 0.1% 17. Cayman Islands ........ .. ......... 0.0 0.1% Others ... .......... ..... .. 0.1 0.5% TOTAL 28.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 37.2 Outgoing 16.6 40.3 28.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 8.4 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 66.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 157 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Guatemala LARGESTTELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .......... ... .. 80.1 54.9% 2. El Salvador ................ ..... 15.2 10.4% 3. Mexico ...... ............. .... 12.0 8.2% 4. Honduras ........... .. .. ... .... .7.9 5.4% 5. Costa Rica ... ... .... .. .. .... .. .. 5.8 • 3.9% 6. Nicaragua ........................ 3.7 • 2.5% 7. Colombia ........ ... ............. 2.7 I 1.8% 8. Panama ......... ... .... ......... 2.2 I 1.5% 9. Korea, Rep. ..................... 1.9 I 1.3% 10. Canada ... ... ... ........... .... 1.7 I 1.2% 11. Spain ................. .. ........ 1.5 I 1.0% 12. Cuba ............................ 0.7 I 0.5% 13. Dominican Republic ..... ... .... ... 0.7 I 0.5% 14. Belize .. .... ...................... 0.6 I 0.4% 15. Italy ...... ...................... 0.6 I 0.4% 16. Germany ......................... 0.6 I 0.4% 17. Argentina ...... ............... 0.6 I 0.4% 18. Venezuela ........................ 0.6 I 0.4% 19. Peru ............ ..... ........... 0.5 I 0.3% 20. Brazil .... ............ .. .......... 0.5 I 0.3% Others ... ... ......... ..... 5.6 • 3.8% TOTAL 145.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 295.9 536.8 817.7 Outgoing 125.9 156.2 145.9 Surplus (Deficit) 170.0 380.6 671.8 Total Volume 421.8 693.1 963.6 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 158 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Hong Kong LARGEST TE.LECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China 00 .. 00 .... 00 00 00 00. 00 00 .2,063.6 2. Philippines ..... ..... .......... 347.7 8.7% 3. United States .. ..... .......... 306.2 7.7% 4. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00.184.4 • 4.6% 5. United Kingdom .. ... ... 153.5 • 3.9% 6. Australia .... .. .... .......... 137.7 • 3.5% 7. Taiwan ...... .... ... .... .. 128.9 • 3.2% 8. Japan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 88.3 I 2.2% 9. Singapore ..... .... ..... .. 85.9 I 2.2% 10. Macau .... 00 .. 00 ........... .48.7 I 1.2% Others ... .. .. ... ... 436.2 11 .0% TOTAL 3,981.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 1,858.0 1,942.3 1,745.3 Outgoing 3,074.9 3,487.3 3,981.1 Surplus !Deficit) 11 ,216.8) 11,545.0) 12,235.7) Total Volume 4,932.9 5,429.6 5,726.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. © PRIM ET RI CA INC. 2003 TELEG EOGRAPHY 20 04 159 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Hungary LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ........................ 79.7 24.4% 2. Romania ........................ 53.9 16.5% 3. Austria .......................... 30.5 9.3% 4. United States .................... 27.9 8.5% 5. United Kingdom .................. 18.4 5.6% 6. Italy ...... .................. .... 17.7 5.4% 7. Serbia and Montenegro ........... 16.6 5.1% B. France ...... .................. 12.4 3.8% 9. Slovak Republic .................. 10.5 3.2% 10. Switzerland ....................... 8.6 2.6% 11. Croatia ... ..... ........... ... 7.0 • 2.1% 12. Netherlands ...................... 6.3 • 1.9% 13. Poland ........... ...... ......... 6.1 • 1.9% 14. Ukraine .......................... 5.9 • 1.8% 15. Czech Republic .... ........ .. .. 5.1 • 1.6% Others .......................... 39.1 •••••••• 12.0% TOTAL 327.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 349.2 326.8 327.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 160 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... 95.0 2. Saudi Arabia ..... .. ... ...... 90.0 3. United Kingdom ..... ... ..... .... 65.0 4. United Arab Emirates .............. 61.0 ••••••• 9.8% ••••••• 9.2% 5. Singapore ..... ... .. .. ..... 29.0 ••• 4.4% 6. Kuwait .. ........... ..... ... .. ... 24.0 3.6% 7. Oman ... ........ .. ..... ....... 17.0 2.6% 8. Germany ........................ 16.0 2.4% 9. Malaysia .. ... .. ..... .. 15.0 2.3% 10. Canada ........ .... ..... ..... 13.0 2.0% 11. Australia ........................ 12.0 • 1.8% 12. Hong Kong ... .. ................. 12.0 • 1.8% 13. Sri Lanka ........................ 11.0 • 1.7% 14. France .......................... 10.0 • 1.5% 15. Italy ... .. ... ... ...... ... .. 9.0 • 1.4% 16. Japan ............................ 9.0 • 1.4% 17. Qatar ............................ 9.0 • 1.4% 18. Pakistan ........ ... .. ... ..... 8.5 • 1.3% 19. Philippines ....................... 8.0 • 1.2% 20. Bangladesh ....................... 7.0 • 1.1% Others ......................... 139.5 TOTAL 660.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 Incoming 2,161.4 2,533.6 Outgoing 527.1 586.4 Surplus (Deficit) 1,634.3 1,947.2 Total Volume 2,688.5 3,120.0 India 21.1% FY 2002/2003 n.a. 660.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data exclude some cross-border traffic with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 161 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Indonesia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Singapore .............. .... .. .. 61.0 •••••••••••••••• 21.1% 2. Malaysia ....................... .46.4 •••••••••••• 16.0% 3. Australia ....................... 21.1 4. Japan ........................... 17.9 5. United States .................... 15.1 •••••• 7.3% ••••• 6.2% •••• 5.2% 6. Taiwan .......................... 11.6 4.0% 7. Hong Kong .............. .... .... 9.7 3.3% 8. Korea, Rep. .......... ... .... 8.9 3.1% 9. China ............... .... ... ... 8.8 3.0% 10. United Kingdom ................... 7.5 2.6% 11. Thailand ....... ......... .... .. 6.4 2.2% 12. India ... ....... ... .... ... .. 5.5 1.9% 13. Philippines ....................... 5.2 • 1.8% 14. Netherlands ..................... 5.0 • 1.7% 15. Germany ......................... 4.6 • 1.6% 16. France ................ ..... .... 3.6 • 1.2% 17. Brunei ..................... ...... 3.0 I 1.0% 18. Italy ............................. 2.4 I 0.8% 19. Saudi Arabia ... ........ ... ........ 2.4 I 0.8% 20. Canada ... .. .... .. .... ...... .. 1.8 I 0.6% Others ........ ..... ............. 41.6 -------- 14.4% TOTAL 289.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming 345.8 365.9 Outgoing 315.5 316.2 Surplus ~Deficit) 30.3 49.6 Total Volume 661.3 682.1 Note: Data are in millions of m~nutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 162 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 2002 429.4 289.4 140.0 718.8 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST TE.LECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Arab Emirates .. ... .. 33.7 2. Pakistan .. .. .... .... ... ... .. 15.8 3. United States .. ... .. .... ... 13.5 4. Saudi Arabia ............ ..... 12.8 5. Un ited Kingdom .... .......... 12.3 6. Germany ... ..... .. ... .. 9.2 7. Kuwa it ... ..... ..... .. .. ... 7.1 ----- 9.2% ••••••• 7.9% ---- 7.5% •••••• 7.2% --- 5.4% ••• 4.2% B. India .. ... .. .. ...... ..... 6.0 3.5% 9. Turkey ........................... 5.0 2.9% 10. Azerbaijan .. ...... .. ............ 3.5 2.1% 11 Italy ............ .. ... .. .. ... 3.5 2.0% 12. Syria ... .. ... 2.7 • 1.6% 13. Qatar ... ... ..... .... .. ..... 2.7 • 1.5% 14. Sweden .... ... ... .... .. ... 2.6 • 1.5% 15. France .. ...... ..... .. ...... 2.6 • 1.5% 16. Switzerland ...... .. ....... .. 2.4 • 1.4% 17. Japan ...... .. ... .. ..... 2.3 • 1.4% 18. Bahrain ... ..... .. .... ... 0 .. .. 2.2 • 1.3% 19. China .. .. .. ......... 01.8 • 1.1% 20. Canada .. 0 ... 0 .. 0 .... ... 1.7 I 1.0% Iran Others ..... ... ..... 0 ...... 27.8 16.3% TOTAL 17102 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 21608 17301 118.8 Outgoing 176.8 179.1 17102 Surplus (Deficit) 4000 (600) (52.4) Total Volume 39306 352.2 289.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA IN C. 2003 TE LEGEOGRAPHY 200 4 163 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ireland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ..... ... ...... 810.0 58.1% 2. United States ................... 165.0 11.8% 3. Germany ........................ 47.0 • 3.4% 4. France .... ................ .... 45.0 • 3.2% 5. Spain .. .. ..... ............ .... 31 .0 I 2.2% 6. Netherlands ...... ..... .... ..... 30.0 I 2.2% 7. Australia .................... .. .. 23.0 I 1.6% 8. Italy ....... .............. ..... 22.0 I 1.6% 9. Canada ..... ... ..... .... ........ 16.0 I 1.1% 10. Belgium ......................... 12.0 I 0.9% 11. Sweden ...... .. .. .. ..... .. 10.0 I 0.7% 12. Switzerland ... ........ ......... 7.0 I 0.5% 13. Denmark ...... .... ....... ... .... 6.0 I 0.4% 14. Finland ... .. .. ................. ... 6.0 I 0.4% 15. Latvia ...... ..... ..... ...... ... 6.0 I 0.4% 16. Romania ........................ 6.0 I 0.4% 17. South Africa .. ... .. .... .. ...... 6.0 I 0.4% 18. Poland ..... ....... ..... ... ..... 5.0 I 0.4% 19. Austria .......... .. ........... ... 4.0 I 0.3% 20. Portugal .... ............ ...... 3.0 I 0.2% Others ......... ............... 135.0 9.7% TOTAL 1,395.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,250.0 1,385.0 1,395.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mrnutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. Data exclude at least 100 million minutes of cross-border traffic to Northern Ireland. 164 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Israel Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... ... 326.5 1•1--11· I· llllllllll,;llllltl*l· 811 27.4%. 2. United Kingdom ....... .. .. .. .. 80.3 6.7% 3. Russia .. .. ........ ... .. .70.5 1(1*11 5.9% 4. Ukraine .. ... ....... .... ..... 63.9 5.3% 5. France ...... ........ ........... 60.5 5.1% 6. Germany ...... .. .. .... .... .. 45.9 3.8% 7. Canada .. .... ... ....... 33.3 • 2.8% B. Italy .. .... .. ............ 26.0 • 2.2% 9. Netherlands .... ..... .. ... ..... 20.3 I 1.7% Others ... .......... ......... .466.7 39.1% TOTAL 1,193.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 661.0 728.0 814.1 Outgoing 1,022.4 11120.0 1,193.7 Surplus (Deficit) (361.4) (392.0) (379.6) Total Volume 1,683.4 1,848.0 2,007.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PR IM ETRICA, INC 2003 TE LEGEOGRAPHY 200 4 165 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Italy LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Germany ..... .... ... ......... 620.0 2. France ....... ... ............. 510.0 3. Romania ............... ........ 350.0 4. United Kingdom ................. 350.0 5. United States ................... 325.0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic •••••• 10.6% •••• 8.7% 6.0% ••• 6.0% -- 5.6% 6. Switzerland ..................... 310.0 5.3% 7. Spain ...... .. .. ....... ....... 260.0 4.5% 8. Morocco ....................... 185.0 3.2% 9. Albania .... .. .. ...... ...... 175.0 3.0% 10. Ukraine ............. ........... 145.0 • 2.5% 11 Poland ......................... 125.0 • 2.1% 12. Austria ......................... 115.0 • 2.0% 13. Belgium ........................ 105.0 • 1.8% 14. Greece .......................... 95.0 • 1.6% 15. Netherlands .. ................... 95.0 • 1.6% 16. Philippines ....................... 90.0 • 1.5% 17. Serbia and Montenegro ...... .... 80.0 • 1.4% 18. Tunisia .......................... 80.0 • 1.4% 19. Croatia .......................... 75.0 • 1.3% 20. Algeria .......................... 70.0 • 1.2% Others ....... ................. 1,680.0 ···········- 28.8% TOTAL 5,840.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 4,160.0 5,140.0 5,840.0 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 166 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Jamaica LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. 31.7 2. United Kingdom ........ .. 9.9 ••••• 17.5% 3. Canada ...... ....... .... ..... .. 4.2 7.5% 4. Cayman Islands .... .. ............. 2.1 • 3.8% 5. Bahamas .. ....................... 1.0 I 1.7% 6. Trinidad and Tobago ..... .. ... ... 0.9 1.5% 7. Barbados ........ ................ 0.5 0.9% 8. Cuba ... ..... .... .... .. ...... 0.5 0.9% 9. Saint Luc ia .................. .... 0.4 0.7% 10. India ... ....... ............ .. ... 0.4 0.6% 11. Netherlands Antilles .... .... .. 0.4 0.6% 12. Guyana ... .. ..... .. .. .. 0.3 0.5% 13. Antigua and Barbuda ... ..... ... 0.2 0.4% 14. Bermuda .. .. .. .... ............ ... 0.2 0.4% 15. Colombia ... .... .... ... 0.2 0.3% 16. China ... ... .. .... ... ... ... 0.2 0.3% 17. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .... 0.1 0.2% Others ...... ... ......... 2.6 • 4.5% TOTAL 56.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 328.5 413.8 349.6 Outgoing 73.9 95.6 56.3 Surplus (Deficit) 254.6 318.2 293.3 Total Volume 402.3 509.4 405.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of publ ic switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRI CA I N C. 2003 TELEGED GRAP HY 2004 167 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Japan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................... 525.0 •••••••••••• 19.9% 2. China .......................... 415.0 •••••••••• 15.7% 3. Philippines ..................... 355.0 I~IMifiFi-iiW !iiiiri*" 13.5% 4. Korea, Rep ......... .. ..... .... .. 185.0 5. Brazil .......................... 180.0 •••• 7.0% •••• 6.8% 6. Taiwan ......................... 115.0 7. Thailand ................ ........ 100.0 ••• 4.4% ••• 3.8% 8. United Kingdom .. .... ... .. ....... 95.0 3.6% 9. Hong Kong ... ........ .... ... ... 70.2 2.7% 10. Australia ........................ 62.3 2.4% 11 Singapore ............ .......... 48.2 1.8% 12. Indonesia ....................... 44.8 • 1.7% 13. Germany ....... .... ... 40.8 • 1.5% 14. France ........... .... .... ....... 36.2 • 1.4% 15. Malaysia .............. .......... 36.1 • 1.4% 16. Canada .... .. .. ... ... ... ... 31.9 • 1.2% 17. Peru ............................ 27.6 • 1.0% 18. Vietnam .................. ....... 19.5 I 0.7% 19. Russia ........................... 5.2 I 0.2% 20. Sri Lanka ....................... 3.5 I 0.1% Others ......... .............. 242.2 ••••••• 9.2% TOTAL 2,638.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,178.4 2,575.4 Surplus ~Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. FY 2002/2003 n.a. 2,638.5 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. 168 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Jordan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Egypt ................... ........ 34.0 17.1% 2. Saudi Arabia ..... ... .. .. ......... 30.1 15.2% 3. United Arab Emirates .............. 16.0 8.1% 4. Palestinian Territory ............... 15.9 8.0% 5. Syria ... .... .... ..... ... ... 14.8 7.4% 6. Iraq ........... .. ... .. ...... .. 13.8 7.0% 7. United States .. ... .. ... ... 10.4 5.2% 8. Israel ... .. ..................... 9.0 4.5% 9. Kuwait .......................... 8.0 4.0% 10. Lebanon ......................... 6.8 3.4% 11. Qatar ... ................... .... 4.0 2.0% 12. Germany .. ... ........... ....... 3.2 1.6% 13. United Kingdom ................... 3.1 1.6% 14. Bahrain .... ... .. ................ 2.6 1.3% 15. Yemen ........................... 2.1 1.1% 16. France .. ..... ....... ... 2.0 • 1.0% 17. Oman .... .. .................... 1.8 • 0.9% 18. Italy ............................. 1.7 • 0.9% 19. India ......... ......... 1.7 • 0.9% 20. Canada .... .... .................. 1.6 • 0.8% Others .. ... .. .... ..... 14.5 7.3% TOTAL 198.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 214.1 217.0 236.0 Outgoing 170.6 185.3 198.4 Surplus (Deficit) 43.5 31.7 37.6 Total Volume 384.7 402.3 434.4 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 169 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kazakhstan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .... ............ ... .47.5 36.1% 2. Uzbekistan ..... ........ ....... .. 16.3 12.4% 3. Kyrgyzstan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .9.3 7.1% 4. Tajikistan ... 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .6.0 4.6% 5. Ukraine 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .4.0 • 3.0% 6. Germany ......................... 3.2 • 2.4% 7. Turkmenistan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.8 I 1.4% 8. Belarus 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00. 1.5 1 1.1% 9. Azerbaijan .... .. ................ 1.3 I 1.0% 10. Armenia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.8 I 0.6% 11 Georgia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.7 I 0.5% 12. China 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.4 I 0.3% 13. France ............ ...... ... 0.4 I 0.3% 14. Moldova 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.3 I 0.2% 15. India. 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 .0.1 I 0.1% Others .......................... 38.0 28.9% TOTAL 131.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 183.1 206.9 260.2 Outgoing 105.4 118.6 131.6 Surplus !Deficit) 77.8 88.4 128.7 Total Volume 288.5 325.5 39.1.8 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 170 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Korea, Rep. LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ..... ........... 257.9 2. Japan .... ... .. ...... .......... 161 .6 15.5% 3. China ... ..................... 159.4 15.3% 4. Philippines ........... .. .. .. .. .. 71.6 6.9% 5. Australia ........................ 48.3 4.6% 6. Canada .. .. .. ... ..... ... ....... 37.5 3.6% 7. Indonesia ....... ... ... 36.8 3.5% 8. Hong Kong ...................... 24.6 -2.4% 9. Thailand .. .... .................. 20.1 • 1.9% 10. United Kingdom ..... .. ......... 18.3 • 1.8% 11. Vietnam ......................... 18.0 • 1.7% 12. Germany ............. ...... .. .. 17.0 • 1.6% 13. New Zealand ... ..... ... .. 15.5 • 1.5% 14. Taiwan .. ... .......... ...... 14.1 • 1.4% 15. Singapore ....................... 13.6 • 1.3% 16. France ........... ... .. 10.5 • 1.0% 17. Russia .. ..... ................... 8.7 I 0.8% 18. Italy ................. .. ......... 7.5 I 0.7% 19. Pakistan ........ ........... 7.4 I 0.7% 20. Bangladesh .. ..... ... .. .. .. .... 6.9 I 0.7% Others ..... ... .......... .... 86.3 8.3% TOTAL 1,041.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 928.0 Outgoing 1,063.0 1,120.0 1,041.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. (113.8) Total Volume n.a. n.a. 1,969.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 171 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kuwait LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Egypt ...... ... ... .. 88.9 •••••••••••• 46.8% 2. India ......... .. .. ..... ...... 26.0 ••••• 13.7% 3. United States .... .. .... ... ... 11 .5 6.0% 4. United Kingdom ........ ... .. 11 .4 6.0% 5. Iran .. ... .. ... ... .. 10.1 5.3% 6. Philippines .. .... ..... ..... .. 6.0 • 3.1% 7. Bangladesh ...... .... .. .. .. .. .4.9 • 2.6% 8. Sri Lanka ....... .............. 3.2 I 1.7% 9. Pakistan .. ....... ..... ... .. 3.1 1 1.6% 10. Morocco .. .. ....... ....... 2.9 I 1.5% 11. Germany .. .. ..... ... ... .. 2.0 I 1.1 % 12. France ... ............. ........... 1.8 I 0.9% 13. Canada ... ... ........ .. .... 1.1 I 0.6% 14. Italy ............................. 1.0 I 0.5% 15. Indonesia .. ........ ........ .... .. 0.7 I 0.4% 16. Turkey .... .. .......... .. ......... 0.7 I 0.3% 17. Sudan ........................... 0.5 I 0.3% 18. Tunisia ....................... .... 0.5 I 0.3% 19. Mauritania ..................... .. 0.3 I 0.1% 20. Somalia ... .......... .... ..... 0.1 I 0.1% Others .. .. ....... .... .. ...... 13.2 7.0% TOTAL 189.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 158.7 166.6 189.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 172 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 200 3 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Kyrgyzstan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Kazakhstan .... .. ... ....... .7,013.8 •••••••••••••••• 38.4% 2. Russia ...... ........ 5,994.8 • ••••••••••••• 32.8% 3. Uzbekistan .................... 2,434.7 13.3% 4. Tajikistan .. .. .... .. ..... ....... 624.7 • 3.4% 5. Turkey ........................ 461.0 • 2.5% 6. Ukraine .. ........ .... ... 242.8 I 1.3% 7. Germany ........... .. .. ..... ... 205.0 I 1.1% 8. Belarus .. .. .................. 188.8 I 1.0% 9. United Kingdom ................. 183.0 I 1.0% 10. Turkmenistan ........ ........... 125.3 I 0.7% 11 Azerbaijan ...................... 115.3 I 0.6% 12. China .......................... 100.0 I 0.5% 13. France ..... .. ..... .......... .72.0 I 0.4% 14. Netherlands ..... ... .. .. .. 61.0 I 0.3% 15. United Arab Emirates ... ......... 40.0 I 0.2% 16. India ............................ 30.0 I 0.2% 17. Switzerland ... ..... ... ... 30.0 I 0.2% 18. Iran ... .............. .. .. ..... 24.0 I 0.1% 19. Italy ............ .. ... ... ..... .. 18.0 I 0.1% 20. Korea, Rep 15.0 I 0.1% Others ......................... 370.0 • 2.0% TOTAL 18,255.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 36.4 42.3 44.5 Outgoing 23.1 23.5 18.3 Surplus !Deficit) 13.3 18.8 26.3 Total Volume 59.5 65.8 62.8 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 173 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Latvia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .......................... 12.6 20.0% 2. Lithuania ...................... .7.3 11 .6% 3. Germany ......................... 5.5 8.7% 4. Estonia .. ........... ........ .. 4.3 6.8% 5. Ukraine .......................... 3.2 5.1% 6. Belarus ....... .. ... ........... .. 2.8 4.4% 7. Sweden .......................... 2.7 4.3% 8. France ............... ... ..... .. 2.4 3.8% 9. United States ..................... 2.3 3.7% 10. Finland ........................... 2.2 3.5% 11. United Kingdom ................... 2.2 3.5% 12. Denmark ........................ 1.7 2.7% 13. Poland ........................... 1.4 2.2% 14. Italy .... .. ....................... 1.0 • 1.6% 15. Ireland ........................... 0.9 • 1.4% 16. Norway .......................... 0.9 • 1.4% 17. Netherlands .... ..... .. ... .... 0.7 • 1.1% 18. Austria ........................... 0.6 • 1.0% 19. Switzerland ............. ..... 0.6 • 1.0% 20. Spain ...... ...................... 0.4 I 0.6% Others .... ..................... .7.3 ••••••• 11 .6% TOTAL 63.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 90.1 105.3 110.6 Outgoing 54.8 64.7 63.0 Surplus (Deficit) 35.3 40.6 47.6 Total Volume 144.9 170.0 173.6 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 174 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ... ........... ...... 1 00.0 2. Germany .. ... ....... ... .... 92.0 3. Belgium ......................... 91.0 4. Portugal ....................... 27.0 5. Italy ... ........... .......... .. 20.0 •••• 6.5% -- 4.8% 6. United Kingdom ....... ..... .. 20.0 4.8% 7. Netherlands ..................... 15.0 3.6% 8. Switzerland ... .... ..... ......... 12.0 2.9% 9. United States ... .. .. ....... .... .. 9.0 • 2.2% 10. Spain ..... .. .. ... ..... ..... .. 6.5 • 1.6% Others .... ... ................. 21 .5 -- 5.2% TOTAL 414.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 Incoming n.a. Outgoing 381.0 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. Total Volume n.a. COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Luxembourg 2001 2002 n.a. n.a. 394.6 414.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 175 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Macau LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China ........................... 64.4 42.2% 2. Hong Kong ...................... 52.8 34.5% 3. Taiwan .. ... ..................... 9.2 6.0% 4. United States .... .. .... .......... 5.9 3.9% 5. United Kingdom ................... 3.5 • 2.3% 6. Philippines .. .. .... ....... ... ... 3.3 • 2.1% 7. Canada .. ... .. .................. 3.0 I 2.0% 8. Portugal ..................... .... 2.7 I 1.8% 9. Australia ... ...... ..... ....... ... 2.5 I 1.7% 10. Thailand ..... .. ...... ...... .. 1.2 I 0.8% 11. Singapore .. .................. .. 0.7 I 0.5% 12. Japan .......... ..... .... .. ...... 0.6 I 0.4% 13. Malaysia ..... ... .. ......... ..... 0.5 I 0.3% 14. Korea, Rep .. ..... ..... .. ......... 0.5 l 0.3% 15. Vietnam ........ ................. 0.4 I 0.3% 16. France .......... .. ... ......... 0.3 I 0.2% 17. New Zealand ................... .. 0.2 I 0.1% 18. Indonesia .... .. ............. 0.2 I 0.1% 19. Germany ............... .......... 0.1 I 0.1% 20. Myanmar .......... ... ...... ..... 0.1 I 0.1% Others ........... .......... ... 0.6 I 0.4% TOTAL 152.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 103.2 111.9 114.0 Outgoing 152.1 156.5 152.7 Surplus (Deficit) (48.9) (44.6) (38.7) Total Volume 255.2 268.4 266.7 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 176 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Macedonia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Serbia and Montenegro ... .... 15.5 23.9% 2. Germany ......................... 6.6 10.3% 3. Greece ........................... 5.3 8.3% 4. Bulgaria .......................... 5.1 7.9% 5. Switzerland .......... ............ 4.2 6.5% 6. Italy ............................ .4.1 6.3% 7. Turkey ........................... 2.5 3.9% B. Croatia .......................... 2.2 3.5% 9. Slovenia ......................... 2.0 3.2% 10. Austria ........................... 1.8 2.7% 11 United States ..................... 1.6 2.5% 12. Albania .......................... 1.4 • 2.1% 13. France ........................... 1.2 • 1.9% 14. Bosnia-Herzegovina ..... .... .... 1.1 • 1.7% 15. United Kingdom ................... 1.1 • 1.7% 16. Monaco .......................... 0.9 • 1.5% 17. Netherlands ...................... 0.9 • 1.4% 18. Sweden ................ .... ...... 0.7 II 1.1% 19. Hungary .................... .. .... 0.7 II 1.0% 20. Belgium .......................... 0.7 II 1.0% Others ........................... 4.8 ••••• 7.4% TOTAL 64.7 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 166.4 197.2 192.5 Outgoing 73.2 66.3 64.7 Surplus !Deficit) 93.2 131.0 127.8 Total Volume 239.6 263.5 257.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 177 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Malaysia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Singapore .. .................... 415.0 2. Indonesia ....................... 107.0 •••• 10.9% 3. Thailand .. .... ... .. ...... 67.0 6.8% 4. United States .................... 46.0 4.7% 5. China ........................... 34.0 • 3.5% 6. Japan .......... ..... ............ 34.0 • 3.5% 7. Australia ........................ 31.0 • 3.2% 8. Philippines ...................... 30.0 • 3.1% 9. India ...................... .. ... 27.0 • 2.7% 10. Hong Kong ...................... 26.0 • 2.6% 11. United Kingdom ........ ... ..... .. 24.0 • 2.4% 12. Taiwan .......................... 20.0 • 2.0% 13. Bangladesh ... ..... .. .... ... 15.0 I 1.5% 14. Myanmar ........... ....... ..... 14.0 I 1.4% 15. Brunei ... .... .. ......... 10.0 I 1.0% 16. Germany ......................... 9.0 I 0.9% 17. Korea, Rep .......... ............. .7.0 I 0.7% 18. Canada .......................... 5.0 I 0.5% 19. France ...................... ..... 4.0 I 0.4% 20. New Zealand ....... ............ .4.0 I 0.4% Others ...... .. ........ ... .... 53.0 5.4% TOTAL 982.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FV 2002/2003 Incoming 765.0 810.0 1,050.0 Outgoing 840.0 845.0 982.0 Surplus (Deficit) (75.0) (35.0) 68.0 Total Volume 1,605.0 1,655.0 2,032.0 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 178 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Maldives LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ... .. .. .. .... .. 2.1 20.2% 2. Sri Lanka ... ............... .. 2.0 19.2% 3. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .1.2 11.7% 4. United Kingdom ............ .... 0.9 8.5% 5. Singapore ... .. ......... ...... 0.5 4.6% 6. Bangladesh ........ ... .. ... .. 0.4 3.9% 7. Germany ........ ........... 0.4 3.7% 8. Switzerland ... ..... .. .... ... .. 0.3 2.9% 9. France ....................... 0.3 2.7% 10. Malaysia ........ ......... .... .. 0.3 2.5% 11. Australia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.2 • 1.8% 12. Thailand 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 • 1.4% 13. Japan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 • 1.3% 14. Russia .............. ... .. .... 0.1 • 1.3% 15. United Arab Emirates .. ... ....... .. 0.1 • 1.3% 16. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 • 1.0% 17. Indonesia .............. ......... 0.1 • 0.9% 18. Austria 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 I 0.7% 19. Pakistan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0.1 I 0.7% 20. Philippines 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000.1 I 0.6% Others ... ... .... ... ..... 0.9 ••••••• 9.0% TOTAL 10.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 7.2 8.2 n.a. Outgoing 5.6 7.0 10.3 Surplus (Deficit) 1.6 1.1 n.a. Total Volume 12.8 15.2 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETR I CA I N C. 2003 TE LEGE OGRAPHY 200 4 179 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Malta LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .. ..... .. ...... .. 13.6 31.0% 2. Italy ... .... ........ .... ... 5.9 13.5% 3. Germany ......................... 3.4 7.7% 4. France .... ...... .. ..... .... .... 2.0 4.6% 5. Libya ... ....................... 1.8 4.1% 6. United States ..................... 1.3 2.9% 7. Netherlands ...................... 1.2 2.7% 8. Australia ......................... 1.1 2.5% 9. Spain ... ...... .... ......... .... 1.0 • 2.3% 10. Switzerland .... ..... .. .. ...... 0.9 • 2.1% 11. Russia ... .. ... ........ .... 0.9 • 2.0% 12. Belgium .............. .. ......... 0.8 • 1.9% 13. Sweden .. .. ..... ...... .. ....... 0.7 • 1.5% 14. Austria ... ...... ... ............. 0.6 • 1.4% 15. Tunisia ......... ................ 0.5 I 1.2% 16. Ireland ........................... 0.5 1 1.1% 17. Canada .. ... .. ...... ... ... .... 0.5 I 1.0% 18. Greece ... ... .... .. .. .... .. ...... 0.5 I 1.0% 19. Norway .......................... 0.4 I 0.9% 20. Turkey ........................... 0.4 I 0.8% Others .. .. ... .... .. .. .... 6.0 ••••••• 13.7% TOTAL 43.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 56.5 65.5 65.6 Outgoing 43.0 45.6 43.8 Surplus (Deficit) 13.4 19.9 21.8 Total Volume 99.5 111.0 109.3 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 180 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Mauritius Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ... ... ........... ........ 8.2 22.1% 2. United Kingdom .. ......... ....... 5.1 13.7% 3. Reunion .......................... 3.6 9.8% 4. South Africa ... ............. .. ... 3.1 8.5% 5. India ....... ... .... .... .... ... 2.8 7.6% 6. Italy ... ... .... ............. .. .. 1.3 3.6% 7. Australia ... ... .. ... .... .... 1.2 3.2% 8. Germany ......... ..... ... ... 0.9 2.4% 9. China ... ... .. .. ....... ... ... 0.9 2.3% 10. Seychelles ..... ......... ..... 0.7 2.0% 11 Switzerland ... ........... ..... .. 0.7 1.9% 12. Madagascar ....... .. .. .... .... 0.6 • 1.6% 13. United States ..................... 0.5 • 1.5% 14. Belgium .. .......... .. .... ...... 0.5 • 1.4% 15. Hong Kong ....................... 0.5 • 1.3% 16. Singapore ... .. ... .... ..... .. 0.4 • 1.2% 17. Canada ... ... .... .. ........ .. 0.3 I 0.8% 18. Taiwan .. ... .... ..... .. .. .. .. 0.2 I 0.6% 19. Spain .... ... ..................... 0.2 I 0.5% 20. Netherlands .. ..... ..... ......... 0.2 I 0.5% Others .. ........... ......... 4.9 •••••••••• 13.3% TOTAL 37.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 2001 2002 Incoming 49.0 56.2 64.0 Outgoing 35.1 35.6 37.1 Surplus (Deficit) 13.9 20.6 26.9 Total Volume 84.0 91.8 101.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 181 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Mexico LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ... ..... ... 1,688.8 *¥* *MM!Mi;h\jdiil!iNii!iiMM 84.6% 2. Spain .................... ...... 20.5 1 1.0% 3. France .......................... 19.4 I 1.0% 4. United Kingdom .................. 18.2 I 0.9% 5. Canada ......................... 17.3 I 0.9% 6. Guatemala ....................... 15.9 I 0.8% 7. Argentina ....................... 12.9 I 0.6% 8. Cuba ............... ............ 12.7 I 0.6% 9. Germany .... .... ..... ... .. ...... 9.7 I 0.5% 10. Colombia .......... .... ........ 7.8 I 0.4% Others ......................... 244.5 12.2% TOTAL 1,996.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 5,896.0 5,347.5 5,836.9 Outgoing 1,981.0 2,037.9 1,996.9 Surplus (Deficit) 3,915.0 3,309.6 3,840.0 Total Volume 7,877.0 7,385.4 7,833.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 182 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Moldova LARGEST TEiLECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .... .... .... ....... .... 21.4 2. Ukraine ......................... 14.9 3. Romania .. .. ..................... 8.1 ••••• 12.3% 4. Italy ............... .. .. ........ 5.3 •••• 8.1% 5. Germany ......................... 2.3 3.5% 6. Turkey ...... .......... .... .... 1.8 • 2.8% 7. Belarus .......... ... ......... 1.5 • 2.3% 8. Portugal ...... .... .. ............ 1.4 • 2.1% 9. France ..... ..... ............ .. 0.9 • 1.3% 10. Greece ........................... 0.9 I 1.3% 11. Israel ............................ 0.7 I 1.0% 12. Spain ..... ... .................. .. 0.6 I 0.9% 13. United States ..................... 0.5 I 0.8% 14. Bulgaria ..... .... ... ......... 0.5 I 0.7% 15. Poland ..... ....... ........ .. .. 0.5 I 0.7% 16. Czech Republic .................... 0.4 I 0.7% 17. United Kingdom ................... 0.4 I 0.6% 18. Ireland ........... .. .. ..... ....... 0.3 I 0.5% 19. Belgium .......................... 0.3 I 0.4% 20. Cyprus .. .. .. ....... .. ....... .. 0.1 I 0.1% Others ..................... ..... 2.8 4.3% TOTAL 65.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 120.8 161.8 191.4 Outgoing 50.8 52.3 65.8 Surplus (Deficit) 70.1 109.6 125.6 Total Volume 171.6 214.1 257.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 183 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Namibia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 2. Germany ........ .... ... ... 1,800.0 I 3.0% 3. United Kingdom .......... .. ... 1,000.0 1.7% 4. Botswana ..... ... ..... ...... 950.0 1.6% 5. Zimbabwe ..... ... ... ... ...... 890.0 1.5% 6. Angola ...... ........ .......... 850.0 1.4% 7. United States ................... 660.0 1.1% 8. Zambia .. ...................... 510.0 0.8% 9. Spain .......................... 500.0 0.8% 10. France .. .. .......... .... ... 245.0 0.4% 11. Portugal ... .................... 220.0 0.4% 12. Italy ............. .. ...... .... 190.0 0.3% 13. Russia ..... ......... ........ 190.0 0.3% 14. China .......................... 140.0 0.2% 15. Norway .. .. ... ... ... ... ... .... 140.0 I 0.2% 16. Netherlands ... ...... ..... ...... 130.0 I 0.2% 17. Switzerland ..................... 130.0 I 0.2% 18. Australia .. ...... .. ... ......... 120.0 I 0.2% 19. Austria .... ... ............. .... 120.0 I 0.2% 20. Nigeria ......................... 110.0 I 0.2% Others .. ...... ... .... ....... 2,500.0 • 4.1% TOTAL 60,600.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 50.7 46.2 52.1 Outgoing 60.2 64.8 60.6 Surplus (Deficit) (9.5) (18.7) (8.5) Total Volume 110.8 111.0 112.7 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 184 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Netherlands LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ....... ... ... ..... .. 545.0 2. Belgium ......... .. ... .. .... 445.0 3. United Kingdom ........ ... .... 345.0 4. United States ................... 220.0 5. France ......................... 215.0 ••••••••• 15.5% ••••••• 12.6% •••••• 9.8% ••• 6.2% ••• 6.1% 6. Italy .............. ............. 90.0 2.6% 7. Spain ........................... 90.0 2.6% 8. Switzerland ..... •............. 90.0 2.6% 9. Turkey .......................... 75.0 • 2.1% 10. Poland .......................... 70.0 • 2.0% 11. Canada ...... .. ................. 55.0 • 1.6% 12. Morocco ....... ..... .. 44.0 • 1.2% 13. Sweden .... .. .. ................ 40.0 • 1.1% 14. Denmark .. .... .. .... ........... 36.0 I 1.0% 15. Portugal .... .... .... .... ......... 36.0 I 1.0% 16. Australia ...... ................. 35.0 I 1.0% 17. Austria .......................... 32.0 I 0.9% 18. Greece .. .. ....... .... .. ..... 30.0 I 0.9% 19. Ireland ......................... 30.0 I 0.9% 20. Suriname ... .. .. ..... .. .. ... 25.0 I 0.7% Others ... ... ............ ..... 977.0 •••••••• ••••••• 27.7% TOTAL 3,525.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,830.0 3,300.0 3,525.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 185 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS New Zealand LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Australia .. ........ .... ..... 450.0 •••••••••••••••• 45.7% 2. United Kingdom ... ........... 160.0 •••••• 16.3% 3. United States .... ............... 85.0 8.6% 4. Canada .. .......... .......... .49.0 5.0% 5. Philippines .......... .. .. ..... ... 25.0 • 2.5% 6. Hong Kong ... .. .. ... ....... .. 16.0 1 1.6% 7. South Africa .. ..... ... .. .... 15.0 I 1.5% 8. Japan .. ..................... ... 14.0 1 1.4% 9. Malaysia ........................ 12.0 I 1.2% 10. Singapore .... ... .. .. ....... 12.0 I 1.2% 11 Fiji ... .. ........... .. .... ..... 11.0 1 1.1% 12. China ... ... .... ... .. ........ 9.0 I 0.9% 13. India ......... .. ... .. .... 9.0 I 0.9% 14. Samoa ... .. ..... .. .. .. ......... 9.0 I 0.9% 15. Taiwan ... ......... .... .. .. 6.0 I 0.6% Others .. ............ .. ... .. 102.0 10.4% TOTAL 984.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 950.0 965.0 984.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 30 June. 186 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Nicaragua LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... ..... ..... 15.0 34.0% 2. Costa Rica ........................ 9.0 20.5% 3. Guatemala ..... ...... ..... .. .... 3.1 7.0% 4. Honduras ... ...... ...... ... .. 2.5 5.7% 5. El Salvador .. ...... .. ........... 2.4 5.6% 6. Mexico ......... .... ... ... .... 1.3 • 2.8% 7. Panama .......................... 1.2 • 2.7% B. Spain .. ........ .. ........ ....... 0.6 I 1.4% 9. Canada .......................... 0.4 I 1.0% 10. Colombia .. .... .......... ...... .. 0.3 I 0.7% 11. Italy ......................... .. .. 0.2 I 0.4% 12. Cuba .. .. ............ .. .......... 0.2 I 0.4% 13. Dominican Republic ... ....... 0.1 I 0.3% 14. Brazil ............................ 0.1 I 0.3% 15. Germany ......................... 0.1 I 0.3% 16. Venezuela ........................ 0.1 I 0.2% 17. Peru .... ................ .. ...... 0.1 I 0.2% 18. United Kingdom ................... 0.1 I 0.2% 19. Chile ... ........... ............... 0.1 I 0.2% 20. Argentina ...... .................. 0.1 I 0.2% Others .... .. .. ........ ..... ... 7.0 ••••••• 15.9% TOTAL 44.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 50.0 50.0 44.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 187 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Nigeria LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom .................. 26.4 2. United States .... ......... .... .. 24.0 •••••••••••••••• 30.4% •••••••••••••• 27.6% 3. India ... .... ..... ................. 3.1 3.6% 4. Germany ...... ................. 2.8 3.2% 5. Lebanon ......................... 2.7 3.1% 6. South Africa .......... .... ... .. 2.5 2.9% 7. France ........................... 2.4 2.8% 8. Italy ............................. 2.2 • 2.6% 9. Netherlands ..................... 1.9 • 2.2% 10. Canada .......................... 1.5 • 1.7% 11. Ghana ........................ .. 1.2 I 1.4% 12. Ireland ........................ ... 1.0 I 1.1% 13. Israel ............................ 1.0 I 1.1% 14. Benin ............................ 0.9 I 1.1% 15. Belgium .......................... 0.9 I 1.0% 16. Switzerland ....................... 0.8 I 1.0% 17. Spain ............. .. ............. 0.7 I 0.9% 18. Cote dlvoire ...................... 0.7 I 0.8% 19. Philippines ....... .. ..... ......... 0.6 I 0.7% 20. Egypt ............................ 0.5 I 0.6% Others ............. .... ... ...... 9.0 •••••• 10.4% TOTAL 86.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. 238.0 n.a. Outgoing 66.0 60.7 86.9 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. 177.3 n.a. Total Volume n.a. 298.7 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 188 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Norway LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Sweden ... .. ... .... ... 210.0 24.1% 2. Denmark .. .. .. ..... ... ...... 105.0 12.0% 3. United Kingdom .. .. ... ..... 95.0 10.9% 4. United States ............ .. .. .. 70.0 8.0% 5. Germany ....................... 50.0 5.7% 6. Netherlands .... .... ... .. ... 36.0 4.1% 7. Spain .... ..... .... ....... 35.0 4.0% B. Finland ..... .... ...... ....... 24.0 2.8% 9. France .... .... ........ 21.0 2.4% 10. Australia .. .. .. .. ...... 13.0 • 1.5% 11 Belgium ... .. .. ... .. .. .... .... 13.0 • 1.5% 12. Italy ... ..... ..... .. 12.0 • 1.4% 13. Poland ...... .. ..... .... .. 12.0 • 1.4% 14. Russia .. ....... ... .. .. .. 11.0 • 1.3% 15. Canada .......................... 9.0 • 1.0% 16. Switzerland .. .. ....... .... ....... 9.0 • 1.0% 17. Greece .. .... .. .. ... ... ... .. 7.0 I 0.8% 18. Turkey ..... .... ....... .......... 7.0 I 0.8% 19. Iceland .. .. .. ......... .. .. .. ..... 5.0 I 0.6% 20. Ireland .................... .... 5.0 I 0.6% Others .... .. ...... ....... ... 122.4 • • •••••• • 14.0% TOTAL 871.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 737.0 796.0 871.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELE GEOGRAP HY 2004 189 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Oman LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ... ...... .................. 55.6 ···········- 33.5% 2. United Arab Emirates .............. 40.4 3. Pakistan ..... .. ..... .... ... .. 11.2 6.8% 4. Bangladesh ....... ... ... ........ 8.9 5.4% 5. Egypt ............................ 6.3 3.8% 6. United Kingdom ................... 5.9 3.5% 7. Saudi Arabia ................. ..... 3.6 • 2.2% 8. Bahrain .. .......... ........ 3.4 • 2.1% 9. Jordan ... .. ...... ... ... .... ... 2.4 • 1.5% 10. United States .................... 2.2 I 1.3% 11. Kuwait ........................... 2.0 1 1.2% 12. Sri Lanka .................... .. ... 1.9 I 1.2% 13. Qatar .... .... ..... ............ 1.9 I 1.2% 14. Philippines ....................... 1.8 I 1.1% 15. Morocco ......................... 1.7 1 1.0% 16. Tanzania .. ........ ........ ....... 1.5 I 0.9% 17. Sudan ........................... 1.4 I 0.8% 18. Lebanon ......................... 0.9 I 0.5% 19. Germany ...... .. ............... .. 0.8 I 0.5% 20. France .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 0.8 I 0.5% Others ...... ... ........ ......... 11 .2 6.8% TOTAL 165.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. 108.0 n.a. Outgoing 116.8 159.3 165.8 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (51.3) n.a Total Volume n.a. 267.3 n..a. Note: Data are in millions of mlhutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude some cross-border traffic to the United Arab Emirates. 190 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Pakistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia ..................... 22.1 17.2% 2. United Kingdom .. .. ... ... ... .. ... 18.4 14.3% 3. United Arab Emirates .... .. .. .. 18.1 14.1% 4. United States ... ... ..... ... .. 17.7 13.8% 5. Germany ... .... ...... ... .4.1 3.2% 6. Canada .... .. .. .. .. ......... 3.4 2.7% 7. Iran ....... ............ .. ........ 3.3 2.6% 8. Hong Kong ... ..... ... ... .. .. ... 3.2 2.5% 9. Bangladesh ...................... 2.8 2.2% 10. Italy ...................... 00 ..... 2.7 2.1% 11 Kuwait ................ 00 ......... 2.7 2.1% 12. China .................. .... ...... 2.1 1.7% 13. France .... ...... ................. 1.8 • 1.4% 14. India ...... .. ................ 00 ... 1.6 • 1.3% 15. Japan ............ 00 .............. 1.5 • 1.2% 16. Oman ........ ...... 00 00 .......... 1.5 • 1.2% 17. Singapore ........................ 1.3 • 1.0% 18. Qatar ..... .. ....... .. ...... 1.3 • 1.0% 19. Bahrain 00 00 .... .... .............. 1.1 • 0.9% 20. Turkey ........................... 1.1 • 0.8% Others ..... ........... ..... .. 16.3 •••••••••••• 12.7% TOTAL 128.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 896.1 1,165.1 1,530.4 Outgoing 98.6 110.0 128.3 Surplus (Deficit) 797.4 1,055.2 1,402.1 Total Volume 994.7 1,275.1 1,658.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 30 June. Data exclude some cross-border traffic to India. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 191 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Palestinian Territory LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Jordan ........................ .. 16.8 41.1% 2. Egypt ............. ..... .... .... 4.2 10.3% 3. United States ..................... 3.7 9.1% 4. Saudi Arabia ..... .. ...... .. .. 2.4 5.9% 5. United Arab Emirates ... .... ........ 1.8 4.4% 6. United Kingdom .. ... ............. 0.9 • 2.1% 7. Germany .. ........ .. ...... .. .. 0.8 • 1.9% 8. Syria ...... .. ... ........ ... 0.6 I 1.4% 9. Bahrain .. ... ..... ... ... ... .. 0.5 I 1.3% 10. Turkey ...... ..... .... .• ........ 0.5 I 1.3% 11 Italy ............................. 0.5 I 1.2% 12. France ...... ........... ..... 0.4 1 1.1% 13. Lebanon ........ ................ 0.4 1 1.1% 14. Qatar ..... ... .. ... ...... 0.4 I 1.0% 15. China .... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... 0.4 I 0.9% 16. Canada .. .......... ... .... ..... 0.4 I 0.9% 17. Kuwait .... ... ... ......... .... 0.3 I 0.8% 18. Morocco ......................... 0.3 I 0.8% 19. Iraq ............................. 0.3 I 0.7% 20. Ukraine .. .......... .. .... .. 0.2 I 0.6% Others .............. .... .. ... .... 4.9 12.0% TOTAL 40.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 37.2 47.9 n.a. Outgoing 45.6 45.3 40.9 Surplus (Deficit) (8.4) 2.6 n.a. Total Volume 82.8 93.1 n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mlhutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Data exclude traffic with Israel. 192 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Paraguay LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Argentina ...... ... ... ... ... .. 9.4 2. Brazil ..... ........ ........ .... 8.2 3. United States ................ .... 2.9 ••••• 10.4% 4. Uruguay .... ......... ....... .. 1.3 4.5% 5. Germany ... .... .. .. ............. 0.9 3.2% 6. Chile .... ................. .. ...... 0.9 3.1% 7. Spain ...... ........... ....... ... 0.6 • 2.1% 8. Bolivia ......... .. ...... .......... 0.5 • 1.9% 9. Peru .. ...... .... .... .......... 0.3 I 1.0% 10. Italy ................ ... .. .. ...... 0.3 I 0.9% 11 Taiwan ........ ................... 0.3 I 0.9% 12. France ....................... ... 0.2 I 0.8% 13. Canada .. ............ .... .... ... 0.2 I 0.8% 14. Japan ... .................... .... 0.2 I 0.7% 15. Korea, Rep ........ .. .............. 0.2 I 0.6% 16. Switzerland ....................... 0.2 I 0.6% 17. Lebanon .............. ..... ... ... 0.1 I 0.5% 18. Colombia .... ..................... 0.1 I 0.5% 19. China .............. .............. 0.1 I 0.4% 20. United Kingdom ................... 0.1 I 0.4% Others ....... ... ....... .......... 1.5 5.2% TOTAL 28.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 71.6 75.8 71.4 Outgoing 33.3 35.3 28.4 Surplus (Deficit) 38.4 40.6 43.0 Total Volume 104.9 111.1 99.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 193 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Peru LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ... .. .. ... ..... 57.0 •••••••••••••••• 40.2% 2. Spain ... ....... ...... ... 12.0 ••• 8.5% 3. Argentina .. .... ... .... 10.0 7.0% 4. Chile .. ... .... .. .. .. ... .... 8.5 6.0% 5. Brazil .. ..... .. ... ...... .4.5 • 3.2% 6. Ecuador .. ....... ..... .... .. .. 4.5 • 3.2% 7. Venezuela ...... .. ... ... ..... 4.5 • 3.2% 8. Colombia ......... ....... .. ..... 4.3 • 3.0% 9. Mexico .. .... .. .. .... ............ 4.2 • 3.0% 10. Bolivia ......................... .. 3.6 • 2.5% 11. Italy .. .. .. .. .... ................. 3.6 • 2.5% 12. Japan .................... ....... 3.4 • 2.4% 13. Canada .......................... 2.2 I 1.6% 14. Germany .... .. .. .. .... .... ....... 1.8 I 1.3% 15. France .... ... .... ........... 1.3 I 0.9% Others .. ... ... .......... .. 16.5 11 .6% TOTAL 141 .9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 458.6 792.7 1,090.7 Outgoing 108.3 112.7 141.9 Surplus !Deficit) 350.3 680.0 948.8 Total Volume 566.9 905.4 1,232.6 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 194 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Philippines LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ................... 125.0 27.1% 2. Japan ........................... 63.0 13.7% 3. Saudi Arabia ....... ...... .. .49.0 10.6% 4. Singapore 00 00. 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 0035.0 7.6% 5. Canada ............... ...... ... 21.0 4.6% 6. Taiwan .. ................ .. ..... 21.0 4.6% 7. Korea, Rep ..... .. .... ..... .. ... 20.0 4.3% 8. Australia ............. .. ......... 19.0 4.1% 9. Hong Kong 00 00 00 00.00 00 .00 00 00.15.0 3.3% 10. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0011 .0 • 2.4% Others .... .... ......... .. ... .... 82.0 •••••••••• 17.8% TOTAL 461.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 2.703.0 3,597.0 3,939.2 Outgoing 327.0 449.0 461.0 Surplus (Deficit) 2,376.0 3,148.0 3,478.2 Total Volume 3,030.0 4,046.0 4,400.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 195 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Portugal LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ......................... 154.0 ··············- 15.9% 2. Spain ... .. ..... ........ .... .... 134.0 ---------- 13.8% 3. United Kingdom .. ...... ....... 84.0 4. Brazil ... ....................... 79.0 5. Germany ... ..................... 72.0 ------ 8.7% •••••• 8.1% ••••••• 7.4% 6. Switzerland ...................... 41.0 7. United States ................... .40.0 8. Ukraine ......................... 39.0 ••• 4.2% ••• 4.1% : ::: 4.0% 9. Italy ............................ 26.0 2.7% 10. Angola ... .... ... ... ..... ...... 24.0 2.5% 11. Netherlands ................... 24.0 2.5% 12. Cape Verde ............ ..... .... 22.0 2.3% 13. Belgium ......................... 17.0 1.8% 14. Guinea-Bissau .... ..... .... 16.0 1.6% 15. Canada ..................... ... 15.0 1.5% 16. Morocco ........................ 15.0 1.5% 17. Moldova ..... .......... 13.0 • 1.3% 18. Romania .. .. ..... ... .... .. ... 13.0 • 1.3% 19. Luxembourg ...................... 9.0 • 0.9% 20. Mozambique ...... ... ............ 8.0 • 0.8% Others ... .....•........... .. .. 125.0 •••••••••• 12.9% TOTAL 970.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 720.0 942.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2002 n.a. 970.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 1999 data are for Portugal Telecom only, and may exclude some cross-border traffic to Spain. 196 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Qatar LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ........................... 38.3 16.4% 2. United Arab Emirates ... .... ... 32.3 13.8% 3. Saudi Arabia ......... ... .. .. 22.2 9.5% 4. Egypt ........................... 19.6 8.4% 5. Bahrain ......... ... .. .. ....... 17.9 7.7% 6. Pakistan ...... ... ............... 8.3 3.6% 7. Jordan .......................... .7.2 3.1% 8. Sudan ............. .... ... .. 6.9 3.0% 9. Kuwait .. ... ... ..... 5.9 2.5% 10. Bangladesh .... ... ... .. .. .. .. 5.8 2.5% 11. Lebanon .................. .. ..... 4.5 1.9% 12. United Kingdom .... .. ... .. ... 4.1 1.8% 13. Syria ................. ... ... .... 3.3 • 1.4% 14. Sri Lanka ......................... 3.2 • 1.4% 15. Oman .......................... 3.1 • 1.3% 16. Yemen ....................... ... 2.6 B 1.1% 17. Iran ........... ........ .... 2.0 I 0.9% 18. Morocco .... .. ....... ... ......... 1.7 I 0.7% 19. Philippines ....................... 1.4 I 0.6% 20. France .. .... ... .. ..... ....... 1.2 I 0.5% Others .... ..... ...... .. ........ .42.0 18.0% TOTAL 233.5 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 95.5 113.5 134.6 Outgoing 143.0 171.6 233.5 Surplus (Deficit) (47.5) (58.1) (98.9) Total Volume 238.6 285.1 368.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 197 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Russia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Ukraine ................. ....... 329.9 27.1% 2. Belarus ........................ 129.3 10.6% 3. Kazakhstan ..................... 118.7 9.7% 4. Azerbaijan ..... ..... .......... .70.1 5.7% 5. Moldova ......... ..... ..... 56.7 4.7% 6. Germany ........................ 51.2 4.2% 7. Uzbekistan .. .... ................. 47.7 3.9% B. Georgia ......................... 38.2 3.1% 9. Armenia .... ... .............. 30.8 2.5% 10. Tajikistan ........................ 28.0 • 2.3% 11. Kyrgyzstan ....................... 21.8 • 1.8% 12. Lithuania ........... ....... .. 18.0 • 1.5% 13. Latvia ........................... 17.9 • 1.5% 14. Italy ............................ 11.1 I 0.9% 15. Turkmenistan .. .. ................. 9.0 I 0.7% 16. Israel ............................ 8.2 I 0.7% 17. China ........................ 7.7 I 0.6% 18. Poland ........................... 7.3 I 0.6% 19. Spain .................... ... ..... 6.0 I 0.5% 20. France .. ..... ...... ........ 5.8 I 0.5% Others ......................... 205.8 •••••••• 16.9% TOTAL 1.219.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 20.01 2002 Incoming n.a. 869.3 1,005.4 Outgoing 944.0 1,081.6 1,219.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (212.3) (213.8) Total Volume n.a. 1,950.9 2,224.6 Note: Data are in millions of mlhutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Data are for Rostelecom only. 198 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saint Kitts and Nevis LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................... .4.2 2. Jamaica ... .... ...... .... 1.0 3. Antigua and Barbuda ... .. ........ 0.9 8.0% 4. Anguilla ............... ........... 0.7 5.9% 5. Barbados ......................... 0.6 5.5% 6. Guyana .......................... 0.5 4.2% 7. Trinidad and Tobago ................ 0.4 3.7% B. Canada .......................... 0.4 3.6% 9. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .. 0.4 • 3.3% 10. Saint Lucia .... ........ .. ......... 0.3 • 2.9% 11. United Kingdom ................... 0.3 • 2.6% 12. Grenada ......................... 0.3 • 2.3% 13. Dominica ......................... 0.3 • 2.2% 14. Netherlands Antilles ... ... ..... 0.1 I 0.9% 15. Bermuda .... ..................... 0.1 I 0.4% 16. Guadeloupe ....................... 0.1 I 0.4% Others .... .... ..... .. .... .. .... .. 0.2 I 1.8% TOTAL 11.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 21.9 Outgoing 13.8 3.0 11.3 Surplus !Deficit) n.a. n.a. 10.5 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 33.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2004 199 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saint Lucia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States ....... .. .... ...... .. 4.9 31.7% 2. Barbados .... .................... 2.0 12.8% 3. Trinidad and Tobago ................ 1.7 11 .1% 4. Martinique .. ......... .... ... 1.4 9.1% 5. Jamaica ... ..... .... .. ....... 0.8 5.2% 6. United Kingdom ............. ..... 0.8 5.0% 7. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .... 0.6 3.5% 8. Dominica ........................ 0.5 3.1% 9. Antigua and Barbuda ... ...... .. 0.4 • 2.5% 10. Grenada .... .. .............. ... 0.4 • 2.5% 11 Saint Kitts and Nevis ............... 0.4 • 2.5% 12. Canada .. .... ................ 0.4 • 2.4% 13. Guyana .......................... 0.2 • 1.4% 14. Cayman Islands ................... 0.1 I 0.8% 15. Anguilla .......................... 0.1 I 0.7% 16. Guadeloupe ...... ... ..... ... .. 0.1 I 0.7% Others ........................... 0.3 • 2.1% TOTAL 15.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. 41.0 Outgoing 20.5 13.4 15.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. 25.4 Total Volume n.a. n.a. 56.5 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 200 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saint Vincent & the Grenadines LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES. 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .... .. ..... .. 2,350.0 ------------ 22.4% 2. Barbados ... .... .. 1,700.0 3. Trinidad and Tobago ... .. 1,660.0 --------· 16.2% ••••••••• 15.8% 4. Cuba .. .. ... ... .. ... 600.0 •••• 5.7% 5. Grenada ... ...... ..... .... 550.0 5.2% 6. Jamaica ... ..... ... ...... ..... 520.0 5.0% 7. Saint Lucia .... .. .. .. .. ... .. 520.0 5.0% B. Canada .. .. .. .... .. .... 430.0 4.1% 9. United Kingdom .... ... .... .... 410.0 3.9% 10. Antigua and Barbuda .......... .. 260.0 2.5% 11 Saint Kitts and Nevis ... ... .. .. 180.0 • 1.7% 12. Dominica .. .......... ........ 130.0 • 1.2% 13. Guyana ....... .. .. ........ .. 100.0 • 1.0% 14. Anguilla .................... ... 70.0 I 0.7% 15. Bermuda .. ....... ..... .... 70.0 I 0.7% 16. Martinique ..... ..... ... .. 70.0 I 0.7% 17. France ..... ... ... .. ... .. ... 50.0 I 0.5% 18. Cayman Islands .. .. ... .. ... 40.0 I 0.4% Others .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. 240.0 2.3% TOTAL 10,500.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 13.0 3.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. 2002 43.8 10.5 33.3 54.3 Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PR I METR I CA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPH Y 2004 201 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Saudi Arabia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 .~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 .289.2 i;iWj.i .......... 111 15.1% 2. Egypt 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .282.4 14.7% 3. Pakistan .... ............ ........ 203.0 10.6% 4. Sudan .. .... ... ....... ....... 123.2 M@nrtrtif©W811tflt1:d 6.4o/o 5. Bangladesh 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.118.9 6.2% 6. Yemen .. ... ................ ... 1 06.1 5.5% 7. United Arab Emirates ......... .... 87.0 4.5% 8. Syria 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 83.8 4.4% 9. Philippines .... .... .. ........... 83.6 4.4% 10. Bahrain ......................... 55.3 2.9% 11. Kuwait 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0051.9 2.7% 12. Jordan .......................... 47.7 2.5% 13. Morocco .... .. ... ..... .... 38.5 2.0% 14. Lebanon .. ....... .... .. .. ....... 37.2 1.9% 15. Indonesia 00 00 00.00 00 00 00.00 00 00.36.5 1.9% 16. United Kingdom .................. 32.1 1.7% 17. United States 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0030.1 1.6% 18. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0028.2 1.5% 19. Qatar 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .20.9 • 1.1% 20. Sri Lanka ........................ 17.8 • 0.9% Others ..... .... ........... .. 143.0 •••••• 7.5% TOTAL 1,916.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. 705.5 815.2 Outgoing 1,194.9 1,516.6 1,916.3 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. (811.2) (1,101.1) Total Volume n.a. 2,222.1 2,731.5 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 202 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Serbia and Montenegro LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 ----------~----~----~--------~ Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ........................ 43.5 15.3% 2. Austria .. ... .. .. .... ........ 26.8 9.4% 3. Croatia ... ...................... 26.5 9.3% 4. Bosnia-Herzegovina ... .... 22.2 7.8% 5. Switzerland ... ... ........ ... 21.5 7.6% 6. Macedonia ...................... 21.0 7.4% 7. Italy ..... ..... .... ....... ... 20.3 7.2% 8. France .. ........ ... ...... ... ... 12.4 4.4% 9. Hungary ................ ........ 9.5 3.3% 10. Slovenia .................. ... .. .. 8.4 3.0% 11 Greece .... ........ ..... ...... 7.5 2.6% 12. United Kingdom ................... 6.8 2.4% 13. United States .. .............. .... 6.2 2.2% 14. Sweden .......................... 5.9 2.1% 15. Russia ... ...... .. ................ 5.9 2.1% 16. Romania ............. .. ...... .. 4.9 1.7% 17. Netherlands .. .. ................. 4.8 1.7% 18. Turkey .... ..... .. ........... .. 4.6 1.6% 19. Bulgaria ........ ... .... ........ 4.0 1.4% 20. Belgium .......................... 3.0 • 1.1% Others ... .. ...... ......... ... 18.6 ••••••• 6.5% TOTAL 284.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. 582.2 587.1 Outgoing 286.9 275.5 284.2 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. 306.7 302.9 Total Volume n.a. 857.7 871.2 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 203 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Singapore LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FV 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Malaysia ....................... 590.0 30.0% 2. United Kingdom ....... ......... 160.0 8.1% 3. Hong Kong ........ ... ..... ... 145.0 7.4% 4. China ..... ...... .. ... .......... 95.0 4.8% 5. Indonesia ....................... 95.0 4.8% 6. Australia .... .......... ..... .... 80.0 4.1% 7. United States .................... 80.0 4.1% 8. Japan ........... ... .. .. ........ 75.0 3.8% 9. Thailand ........................ 55.0 2.8% 10. Philippines ....................... 51.0 • 2.6% 11. India ... .. ...................... .45.0 • 2.3% 12. Taiwan ... ... ..... .... ..... 39.0 • 2.0% 13. Korea, Rep ....................... 19.0 I 1.0% 14. Bangladesh ...................... 18.0 I 0.9% 15. Germany ........................ 12.0 I 0.6% Others ......................... 406.0 ••••••••••• 20.7% TOTAL 1,965.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FV 2000/2001 FV 2001/2002 FV 2002/2003 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,515.0 1,870.7 1,965.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n..a. Note: Data are in millions of mi"hutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 204 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Slovak Republic LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Czech Republic .................. .70.0 2. Germany ........................ 27.0 •••••• 13.9% 3. Austria ... .... .. ................ 15.0 7.7% 4. Hungary ............. ............ 10.0 .. 5.2% 5. Italy ............................. 8.0 4.1% 6. Poland ........................... 8.0 4.1% 7. United Kingdom ........... ....... 7.0 3.6% 8. United States ..................... 6.0 • 3.1% 9. France ... .... ..... ... .. .. .. 4.0 • 2.1% 10. Switzerland .... .... ... ... ... .. 3.5 • 1.8% Others .......................... 35.5 lllf~IWijlcij:> !1:1\lli!M 18.3% TOTAL 194.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 233.1 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 162.7 176.3 194.0 Surplus (Deficit) 70.4 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 395.7 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 205 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS South Africa LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ................. 109.2 ·---------· 19.3% 2. Zimbabwe ........ .. .......... .44.4 3. United States ....... ............. 36.8 4. Namibia ..... ........ ... ... .. .. 35.8 5. Mozambique ......... .. .. ... 33.9 6. Botswana ....................... 30.4 7. Germany ..... ... ........... .. 21 .3 ....... 7.8% --- 6.5% --- 6.3% ..... 6.0% ••• 5.4% •• 3.8% B. Swaziland ....................... 18.3 3.2% 9. Australia .. .... ........ .......... 16.5 2.9% 10. Lesotho ....... ... .. .. .... .... ... 15.0 2.6% 11 Netherlands .......... ........ ... 10.0 • 1.8% 12. Zambia .............. ...... .... .. 10.0 • 1.8% 13. India ........... ... ........... .... 9.5 • 1.7% 14. France ........................... 9.4 • 1.7% 15. Malawi .................. .... .... 8.3 • 1.5% 16. Portugal .. ..... .. ... ... ... ... .... 7.7 • 1.4% 17. Nigeria ......... ....... ..... ..... 7.6 • 1.3% 18. Canada .... ........ ........ .... 7.2 • 1.3% 19. Pakistan ................... .. .... 6.6 • 1.2% 20. Italy ...... ....................... 6.5 • 1.1 % Others ...... .... .. .. ..... 122.9 •••••••••••••••• 21 .7% TOTAl 567.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 700.0 736.0 811.8 Outgoing 494.6 510.7 567.2 Surplus (Deficit) 205.4 225.3 244.6 Total Volume 1,194.6 1,246.7 1,379.0 Note: Data are in millions of miilutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. 206 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA. INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ...... .. .... ..... 630.0 2. Germany .. ..... .. ......... 565.0 3. France ... ........... ..... 530.0 ------ 13.3% ••••••• 11 .9% ••••••• 11 .2% 4. Italy ..... .... .. ... .......... 235.0 5.0% 5. Portugal ... ... .. ........ ... 195.0 4.1% 6. Morocco ......... ... ... .... .. 170.0 .. 3.6% 7. United States ... ... .. .. ..... 155.0 3.3% B. Netherlands .. .. .. .... 120.0 2.5% 9. Switzerland ....... .. ........ 105.0 • 2.2% 10. Ecuador ...................... 100.0 • 2.1% 11. Belg ium .... .. .... ..... 99.0 • 2.1% 12. Cuba .... ... .. .. ... .. ..... 89.0 • 1.9% 13. Colombia ... ...... .. .. .... .. 87.0 • 1.8% 14. Ireland ...... .. ..... .... ... .. 75.0 • 1.6% 15. Argentina ... ...... .. ........ .70.0 • 1.5% 16. Romania .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. 70.0 • 1.5% 17. Sweden ................... .. 63.0 • 1.3% 18. Andorra .. ... .. .......... 50.0 • 1.1% 19. Peru .... ..... ......... 49.0 I 1.0% 20. Dominican Republic .. .... 44.0 I 0.9% Spain Others .. .... .. .. 1,239.0 •••••••••••••••• 26.1 % TOTAL 4,740.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 3,215.0 4,275.0 4,740.0 Surplus ~Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Total traffic volumes may include some refile traffic to Latin America originated outside of Spain. © PR I M ETRICA I NC 200 3 TELE GEOGRAPH Y 200 4 207 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Swaziland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa ... .. ............ 19,275.9 ••••••••••••• 82.7% 2. Mozambique .. ... .. .. ... ..... .736.3 I 3.2% 3. United Kingdom .. ....... .. .. .... 471.2 I 2.0% 4. Zimbabwe ...................... 311 .9 I 1.3% 5. Botswana ...................... 293.9 I 1.3% 6. United States .. .. .. .. ..... .... .. 183.4 I 0.8% 7. Lesotho .. ..... .. ... ........ .. 141.0 I 0.6% 8. Taiwan .. ...... ... .. ...... 130.0 I 0.6% 9. India .......................... 112.1 I 0.5% 10. Kenya .......................... 1 09.8 I 0.5% 11. Zambia ......................... 104.5 I 0.4% 12. China ............. ........ ..... 88.4 I 0.4% 13. Tanzania ........................ 67.9 I 0.3% 14. Uganda ......................... 60.7 I 0.3% 15. Portugal ... ..................... 56.1 I 0.2% 16. Namibia ......................... 48.1 I 0.2% 17. Ghana .. ........................ 42.4 I 0.2% 18. Italy ............. ............. .42.0 I 0.2% 19. Canada .. ... .. ... ... .. ........ 37.9 I 0.2% 20. Malawi .. .... ... ... .... ... ... 37.3 I 0.2% Others ......................... 960.0 • 4.1% TOTAL 23,314.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FV 2000/2001 FV 2001/2002 FV 2002/2003 Incoming 22.5 n.a. 18.3 Outgoing 25.1 26.3 23.3 Surplus (Deficit) (2.6) n.a. (5.0) Total Volume 47.6 n.a. 41.6 Note: National traffic data are In millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. 208 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Sweden LARGEST TE.LECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Norway ... .. .......... .. .... 250.0 2. Finland ......................... 245.0 3. United Kingdom ....... ......... 230.0 •••••••••••••••• 14.2% •••••••••••••••• 14.0% •••••••••••••• 13.1 % 4. Denmark ..... ... .. .. ... .... .. .. 195.0 5. United States ................... 175.0 6. Germany ....... .......... .. .. 160.0 •••••••••• 11 .1% ••••••••••• 10.0% •••••••••• 9.1% 7. Poland ........... .... ..... .. .. 100.0 ••••• 5.7% 8. France .. .......... .......... 70.0 9. Netherlands ..................... 60.0 ::::~ 4.0% 3.4% 10. Switzerland .... .... ....... .... 60.0 --· 3.4% 11 Spain ........................... 35.0 2.0% 12. Italy ....... .. ................... 30.0 1.7% 13. Austria ......................... 25.0 1.4% 14. Turkey .... .... .................. 25.0 1.4% 15. Serbia and Montenegro .... .... 14.0 • 0.8% Others ....................... .. 81.0 ••••• 4.6% TOTAL 1,755.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,550.0 1,710.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 2002 n.a. 1,755.0 n.a. n.a © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 209 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Switzerland LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany .. ... .. ..... ... ... 00710.0 ••••••••••••••• • 20.3% 2. France ......................... 480.0 3. Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00.415.0 4. United Kingdom ..... 00 ..... 00 ... 195.0 5. United States .. ..... ......... ... 170.0 6. Austria ..... ............ ... ... 145.0 7. Spain .......................... 140.0 8. Portugal 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 115.0 3.3% 9. Serbia and Montenegro .... .... 100.0 2.9% 10. Netherlands 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.65.0 1.9% 11 Belgium 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.45.0 • 1.3% 12. Canada .. ... ........... ..... ... 45.0 • 1.3% 13. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0045.0 • 1.3% 14. Macedonia ...................... 30.0 I 0.9% 15. Croatia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0027.0 I 0.8% 16. Bosnia-Herzegovina ............... 25.0 I 0.7% 17. Sweden 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .24.0 I 0.7% 18. Liechtenstein 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0021.0 I 0.6% 19. Russia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0018.0 I 0.5% 20. Brazil 00 00 00 00 00.00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 .17.0 I 0.5% Others .... ... .. .. ....... .. 663.0 19.0% TOTAL 3,495.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 2,780.0 3,230.0 3,495.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 210 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Lebanon .... .. .. ... .. .... 44.7 2. Saudi Arabia .. ........... ... 40.4 3. United Arab Emirates .... ... ... .. 12.8 4. Jordan .. ...... .............. 10.4 --- 7.1% •••• 5.8% 5. Iraq ... ... .. .... ..... 9.5 5.3% 6. Egypt ..... ... .... ... ..... .... 5.2 2.9% 7. Kuwait .... ... .... ..... ....... 3.7 2.1% 8. Turkey ... .. ........ ... 3.4 • 1.9% 9. France .... ... .. .... ..... 2.7 • 1.5% 10. Germany ........... .... ... .. 2.6 • 1.4% 11 Bahrain .... ................. 2.2 I 1.2% 12. Qatar .. .. ...... .......... 2.2 I 1.2% 13. Italy ...... .. .... .. ... .. .. ... 1.8 I 1.0% 14. Sudan .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 1.2 I 0.7% 15. Morocco .. ....... .. ... .. .... 1.2 I 0.7% 16. United States .... ...... ..... 1.1 I 0.6% 17. Russia .. ....... ... .. .. ... 1.1 I 0.6% 18. Iran ... .... ... .. .. .. ........... 1.1 I 0.6% 19. Greece .... ........... ..... .... 1.0 I 0.6% 20. Yemen .. ...... .. .... 0.9 I 0.5% Others ................ ........ 30.8 •••• ••••••• 17.1% TOTAL 179.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming 286.0 325.8 Outgoing 140.0 150.0 Surplus (Deficit) 146.0 175.8 Total Volume 426.0 475.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA I NC 200 3 Syria 2002 n.a. 179.8 n.a. n.a. TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 211 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Taiwan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 .ci!;. Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. China .... ...... ......... .. .... 749.1 34.8% 2. United States ................... 222.1 10.3% 3. Philippines .. .... ......... ...... 141 .5 6.6% 4. Japan .. .......... .... ... .. .. .. 104.9 4.9% 5. Hong Kong ...................... 92.7 4.3% 6. Thailand ......................... 80.0 3.7% 7. Vietnam ........................ .43.7 • 2.0% 8. Canada ......................... 43.7 • 2.0% 9. Singapore ........ ... .... 34.8 • 1.6% 10. Australia ........................ 33.6 • 1.6% 11. Indonesia ..... ........ .. ........ 28.8 I 1.3% 12. United Kingdom .. ........ .. ... 25.4 I 1.2% 13. Malaysia ............. ...... .... 24.9 I 1.2% 14. Korea, Rep ..... .. ................ 18.4 I 0.9% 15. Germany ...... .... .............. 12.4 I 0.6% 16. France ........................... 8.4 I 0.4% 17. New Zealand ................. ... 7.6 I 0.4% 18. Myanmar ....................... 5.7 I 0.3% 19. India .... ......... .. ......... ..... 5.2 I 0.2% 20. Macau ........................... 5.1 I 0.2% Others .......... .............. 466.0 21 .6% TOTAL 2,154.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,160.0 1,522.2 2,154.0 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n,.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 212 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Tajikistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (thousands) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6,509.9 ------------ 65.0% 2. Uzbekistan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1,537.8 15.4% 3. Kazakhstan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .736.7 7.4% 4. Kyrgyzstan ...................... 374.7 • 3.7% 5. Ukraine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.138.8 I 1.4% 6. Turkmenistan 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 00 .119.5 I 1.2% 7. Belarus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .62.6 I 0.6% 8. Azerbaijan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.6 I 0.2% 9. Armenia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.2 I 0.1% 10. Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .12.0 I 0.1% 11 Moldova 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .11 .6 I 0.1% Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.500.0 • 5.0% TOTAL 10,009.3 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 18.5 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 6.8 8.6 10.0 Surplus (Deficit) 11.7 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 25.3 n.a. n.a. Note: National traffic data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic; route data are in thousands of minutes of 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. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 213 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Tanzania LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United Kingdom ................... 2.0 2. South Africa ...................... 1.9 3. India ............................. 1.0 4. United States ..................... 0.7 5. United Arab Emirates ... .. ..... ... 0.5 ••••••••••••• 17.8% ••••••••••• 16.7% ••••••• 9.0% --- 6.5% ••• 4.2% 6. Zambia .......... ...... ........... 0.3 2.5% 7. France ........................... 0.3 2.2% 8. Oman ........................... 0.2 B 2.0% 9. Zimbabwe ..................... 0.2 • 1.8% 10. Netherlands ...................... 0.2 • 1.8% 11. Germany ... ... .. ........ ... ... ... 0.2 • 1.8% 12. Kenya ......................... .. 0.2 • 1.7% 13. Switzerland ........ .. .......... .. 0.2 • 1.5% 14. Australia .. ....................... 0.2 • 1.5% 15. Malawi .......................... 0.2 • 1.3% 16. Pakistan ......................... 0.1 • 1.3% 17. China .... .. .. ................... 0.1 • 1.2% 18. Egypt ....................... .... 0.1 • 1.2% 19. Uganda .. .... ... ... .. ....... .. ... 0.1 • 1.1% 20. Spain ............................ 0.1 I 1.0% Others ........................... 2.5 21 .8% TOTAL 11.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 13.0 9.4 11.4 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 214 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Thailand LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Japan ........ ... .. .... ... .. 40.7 9.7% 2. United States ... ..... ..... ..... 39.8 9.5% 3. Malaysia ... .. .... .. .... ... 35.6 8.5% 4. Singapore .. ... ... ...... .... 30.0 7.2% 5. Laos .. .. .. ........ 23.9 5.7% 6. United Kingdom ..... ..... .. ... 22.0 5.2% 7. China .. .... .... .... ............. 19.4 4.6% 8. Australia .. ...... .. .. .. ... 18.8 4.5% 9. Taiwan ................•........ 17.7 4.2% 10. Hong Kong .................... .. 16.9 4.0% 11. Myanmar ....... .. .. .. ..... 14.3 3.4% 12. Germany ..... .. .... ... .. 12.6 3.0% 13. Korea, Rep .. ..................... 9.3 2.2% 14. India .......... .. ....... ... ...... 9.1 2.2% 15. France ...... .. ................... 8.1 1.9% 16. Phil ippines .......... .. .. .. ....... 6.6 • 1.6% 17. Indonesia ............... .. ... ... 5.7 • 1.4% 18. Sweden .. .............. .......... 5.2 • 1.2% 19. Switzerland .... .... ............... 5.0 • 1.2% 20. Italy ........... .. ... ..... 4.5 • 1.1% Others .. ... ..... ... ..... .. .. .73.9 ••••••••••••••• • 17.6% TOTAL 419.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 426.6 555.0 305.0 Outgoing 355.2 377.7 419.1 Surplus (Deficit) 71.4 177.4 ( 114.1) Total Volume 781.8 932.6 724.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 1999 data exclude some cross-bor­ der traffic with Laos, Malaysia, and Myanmar. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEG EO G RAP HY 200 4 215 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Togo LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. France ... ...... ......... .. .... 4.2 -----------· 19.2% 2. Benin .. ... ... ........ ....... 2.5 •••••••••• 11 .4% 3. United States ... .... ...... 2.1 •••••••• 9.5% 4. Burkina Faso .... ........ .... .. 1.5 5. Cote dlvoire .................. ... 1.4 6. Belgium ....... .. ... .. ... ... 1.3 7. United Kingdom ................... 1.2 •••••• 6.6% •••• 6.3% --- 5.7% ••••• 5.4% 8. Ghana ... ...... 1.0 9. Nigeria .............. .. .... 0.9 ::::-! 4.6% 4.0% 10. Germany ..... ............ .. ..... 0.8 3.6% 11. Senegal .. ... .............. .. .... 0.4 1.9% 12. Lebanon ...... .. .. ....... .... 0.4 1.8% 13. Mali ........... .. .. .. .... .. .... 0.4 1.8% 14. Niger .. ... .. ..... ....... 0.4 Bl 1.7% 15. Gabon ........... ... .... ..... 0.3 • 1.5% 16. Portugal ...............•. .... ... 0.3 • 1.4% 17. Switzerland .... .. .... .. ... ... 0.2 I 0.9% 18. Gambia ... .. ..... .. .... ....... 0.2 I 0.7% 19. Netherlands ... ... ..... 0.2 I 0.7% 20. Cameroon ... .............. 0.1 I 0.6% Others ............. ....... .. .. 2.3 10.6% TOTAL 22.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 Incoming 12.2 48.8 Outgoing 10.2 14.1 Surplus (Deficit) 2.0 34.6 Total Volume 22.4 62.9 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 216 TELEGEOGRAP HY 2004 2002 n.a. 22.1 n.a. n.a. © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Trinidad and Tobago LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .. .... ..... .. 40.4 2. Canada .......................... 7.7 3. United Kingdom .......... ...... ... 6.5 8.1% 4. Barbados ..... .......... ... ... 3.9 4.9% 5. Grenada ......................... 3.2 • 4.0% 6. Guyana ...... .... .......... ...... 3.1 Ill 3.9% 7. Jamaica ......................... 2.5 • 3.1% 8. Venezuela ....................... 2.3 • 2.9% 9. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ... 2.0 • 2.5% 10. Saint Lucia ....................... 1.6 I 2.0% 11. Antigua and Barbuda ..... ... .. .. 1.3 I 1.6% 12. Netherlands Antilles ..... ... ..... 0.5 I 0.6% 13. Saint Kitts and Nevis ... .. .. 0.5 I 0.6% 14. Dominica .. ...... ............... 0.5 I 0.6% 15. Germany ................ ........ 0.4 I 0.5% 16. India ..... ........ ..... ........... 0.4 I 0.5% 17. Bahamas ... .. ... ......... ..... ... 0.3 I 0.4% 18. Netherlands ............. .... ..... 0.3 I 0.4% 19. Dominican Republic ........... ... 0.2 I 0.3% Others ........................... 2.5 • 3.1% TOTAL 80.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 167.7 189.2 276.6 Outgoing 80.5 80.9 80.2 Surplus (Deficit) 87.2 108.3 196.4 Total Volume 248.2 270.0 356.7 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic Fiscal year ends 31 March. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 217 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Turkey LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Germany ... ......... .......... 155.0 •••••••••• 23.8% 2. United Kingdom .. ... .. 47.0 7.2% 3. United States ... ... ... ... .. .. 30.0 4.6% 4. France ... ....... .. .. ..... 29.0 4.5% 5. Netherlands .. .. .. .. .. ... 26.0 4.0% 6. Bulgaria .. .... ...... ........ .... 20.0 3.1 % 7. Austria ..... .. ... .. .. .. .. 14.0 B 2.2% 8. Belgium ........... .. .. .... .. 13.0 B 2.0% 9. Greece .. .......... ... ....... 13.0 B 2.0% 10. Italy ... ................... ..... 13.0 B 2.0% 11. Russia .... .. .. .. .... 13.0 B 2.0% 12. Switzerland ...................... 13.0 B 2.0% 13. Romania ... ..... .......... .... 12.0 B 1.8% 14. Azerbaijan ............ .. ... .. .. 9.0 I 1.4% 15. Ukra ine ... ...... .... .. .. 8.5 I 1.3% 16. Saudi Arabia .... ... .. ... .... 8.0 I 1.2% 17. Moldova ....... ...... .. .... .. 7.5 I 1.2% 18. Israel ........... .... .. .. .. .. 7.0 I 1.1% 19. Iran ................ .. .. ..... 6.0 I 0.9% 20. Sweden .. ..... ..... .. .. 6.0 I 0.9% Others ........ ... ... .. .. 200.0 •••••••••••••••• 30.8% TOTAL 650.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 1,240.0 1,100.0 1,100.0 Outgoing 731.8 675.0 650.0 Surplus (Deficit) 508.2 425.0 450.0 Total Volume 1,971.8 1,775.0 1,750.0 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic 218 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA IN C. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Turkmenistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia ........................... 7.9 32.7% 2. Azerbaijan ......... .. ............ 2.2 9.1% 3. Kazakhstan ...................... 1.8 7.7% 4. Uzbekistan ....................... 1.6 6.8% 5. Ukraine .. .... .... .... ...... ...... 1.2 5.0% 6. Kyrgyzstan ........ ....... ... ... 0.6 • 2.5% 7. Armenia .. ... .... ... ... .. ..... .. 0.4 • 1.9% 8. Belarus .......... ..... .......... 0.4 I 1.6% 9. Georgia ............... .......... 0.4 I 1.5% 10. Tajikistan ......................... 0.2 I 1.0% 11. Moldova ......................... 0.0 I 0.2% Others ........................... 7.2 ••••••••••••••• 29.9% TOTAL 24.1 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 11.3 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 15.7 19.3 24.1 Surplus (Deficit) (4.5) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 27.0 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of 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. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 219 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Ukraine LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .. ... ....... ... ... ... ... 238.5 58.9% 2. Belarus .................... .... 19.7 • 4.9% 3. Poland ... .. ... .. .. ...... ..... 15.8 • 3.9% 4. Germany ... ... .. ..... .. ...... 14.6 • 3.6% 5. Moldova ... .. ... ........ ... .. .. 13.5 • 3.3% 6. Italy ............... .. ....... .... .7.3 I 1.8% 7. Czech Republic ..... ........ ... ... 6.0 1.5% 8. Armenia ......................... 4.9 1.2% 9. Azerbaijan ........ .............. 4.9 1.2% 10. Kazakhstan ............... .. .. ... 4.1 1.0% 11. Hungary ... ... ... ... .. ..... ... .. 4.1 1.0% 12. Turkey .......................... .4.0 1.0% 13. United States ..................... 3.9 1.0% 14. Georgia ..... ... ............. 3.8 0.9% 15. United Kingdom ........ .......... 2.8 0.7% 16. Uzbekistan .. .................... 2.7 0.7% 17. Israel ..... .. .. ...... ....... .. .. 2.6 0.6% 18. Lithuania ...... .. .... ............ 2.4 0.6% 19. Bulgaria .. ................ .. ...... 2.0 0.5% 20. Greece ... ....................... 2.0 0.5% Others .......... .......... .... 45.5 11 .2% TOTAL 405.0 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 269.5 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 363.0 388.0 405.0 Surplus (Deficit) (93.4) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 632.5 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 220 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Arab Emirates LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. India ................ ..... 514.8 27.2% 2. Pakistan ...... .. ..... .. ... .. .. 214.4 11.3% 3. Egypt ........... .... ........... 108.9 5.8% 4. Saudi Arabia .. ... .. ......... 93.4 4.9% 5. Philippines .... ................. 80.1 4.2% 6. Bangladesh .... .. ................ 77.7 IIIII 4.1% 7. United Kingdom ... .............. 66.5 3.5% 8. Oman ......................... 61 .2 3.2% 9. Syria ....... .... ................ 60.5 1111 3.2% 10. Iran .. ... ..... .. .. ... ... 42.7 2.3% 11 Jordan .......................... 41 .8 2.2% 12. Lebanon .. ... ...... ... 41 .1 • 2.2% 13. United States .. ...... .... ........ 38.1 • 2.0% 14. Bahrain ......................... 33.1 • 1.7% 15. Qatar ..... ......... .. .......... 31 .8 • 1.7% 16. Sudan ........... .............. 31 .0 • 1.6% 17. Kuwait ......... .... ... ...... 27.6 • 1.5% 18. Sri Lanka ........................ 24.1 • 1.3% 19. Yemen .......................... 22.9 • 1.2% 20. Morocco ....................... 22.1 • 1.2% Others ............. ..... ... 259.6 •••••••• 13.7% TOTAL 1,893.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Outgoing 1,123.6 1,395.9 1,893.6 Surplus (Deficit) n.a. n.a. n.a. Total Volume n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 221 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Kingdom-Outgoing LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. United States .................. 2,635.0 18.1% 2. Germany ....................... 947.8 6.5% 3. France ... .............. .... ... 845.6 5.8% 4. Ireland 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.691.1 4.8% 5. Spain 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00644.6 4.4% 6. Australia ................... .... 478.0 3.3% 7. Italy 00 00 00. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00478.0 3.3% 8. Canada 00 00 00 00 00 .• 00 00 00 00 .. 464.5 3.2% 9. Netherlands .................... 352.3 R 2.4% 10. Switzerland 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00292.1 • 2.0% 11 Sweden 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.258.2 • 1.8% 12. Pakistan 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00.256.4 • 1.8% 13. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .245.1 • 1.7% 14. Belgium ... .................... 233.2 II 1.6% 15. Japan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00.200.9 • 1.4% 16. Brazil .. 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .193.1 • 1.3% 17. South Africa .................... 189.7 I 1.3% 18. Greece 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 189.4 • 1.3% 19. Turkey 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.183.0 I 1.3% 20. Russia 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 170.5 I 1.2% Others ............. .......... 4,596.7 •••••••••••••••• 31 .6% TOTAL 14,545.4 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 FY 2001/2002 FY 2002/2003 Incoming 7,463.2 7,664.8 9,569.6 Outgoing 12,242.7 13,941.2 14,545.4 Surplus (Deficit) (4,779.5) (6,276.4) (4,975.8) Total Volume 19,705.9 21,606.0 24,115.1 Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. 222 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United Kingdom-Incoming LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, FY 2002/2003 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Incoming Traffic 1. United States .. ... .. ..... 1,694.1 • • ••••••• 17.7% 2. Germany ....... .. ... .781 .3 3. France .... .. .. .. ...... .. 661 .5 --· 8.2% ••• 6.9% 4. Ireland ................. ... .... 560.5 5.9% 5. Italy .............. .. ........ ... 457.6 4.8% 6. Australia .... .... .......... ..... 415.0 4.3% 7. Spain .. ... ... .... .. .. .. .. 413.0 4.3% 8. Canada ........................ 341.6 3.6% 9. Netherlands .. .. .. 258.0 • 2.7% 10. Switzerland ..................... 245.5 • 2.6% 11. Sweden ...... .................. 239.6 • 2.5% 12. Greece ... ... ................... 237.6 • 2.5% 13. Belg ium .... .. .................. 174.8 • 1.8% 14. Russia .. .... .. ................. 119.2 I 1.2% 15. India .......... .. ...... .. .. .. ... 106.9 I 1.1 % 16. South Africa ........... ..... .. 100.4 I 1.0% 17. Turkey .. .. ... ... .. .... .. .. .... 59.3 I 0.6% 18. Japan ........................... 52.9 I 0.6% 19. Brazil ....................... .. .. 52.8 I 0.6% 20. Pakistan .. .................... 30.7 I 0.3% TOTAL 9,569.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes FY 2000/2001 Incoming 7,463.2 Outgoing 12,242.7 Surplus (Deficit) (4,779.5) Total Volume 19,705.9 FY 2001/2002 7,664.8 13,941 .2 (6,276.4) 21,606.0 FY 2002!2003 9,569.6 14,545.4 (4,975.8) 24,115.1 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. Fiscal year ends 31 March. © PRIME T RICA I NC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 20 04 223 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United States-Outgoing LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) 1. Mexico ... .. ....... ...... .... 5,201.4 2. Canada ...... .... ............ .4,861 .0 Percent of Outgoing Traffic •••••• 12.9% ••••• 1 12.1% 3. Philippines .... ............... 2,251 .5 5.6% 4. India ......................... 1,722.6 4.3% 5. United Kingdom ................ 1,722.4 4.3% 6. Dominican Republic ............ 1,186.2 • 2.9% 7. Germany .......... .. ......... 1,064.1 • 2.6% B. Brazil ........................ 952.2 • 2.4% 9. Guatemala .. ... ...... .. ... .... 908.8 • 2.3% 10. Japan .......................... 895.6 • 2.2% 11 Italy ......... ... .. .... ....... .730.5 • 1.8% 12. El Salvador .... ... .... .. ....... 722.6 • 1.8% 13. Colombia ...... ... ... .. .721.9 • 1.8% 14. China ........ .......... .. ...... 660.9 I 1.6% 15. Jamaica ............. ......... .. 647.3 1 1.6% 16. France ......................... 632.6 I 1.6% 17. Pakistan ................ .. ...... 615.2 I 1.5% 18. Australia ... .................. 579.4 I 1.4% 19. Ecuador ........................ 473.1 I 1.2% 20. Korea, Rep ........ .... .......... 471 .5 I 1.2% Others ... ... .. .... .. .. ...... 13,316.6 33.0% TOTAL 40,337.2 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 13,010.7 13,400.0 14,249.8 Outgoing 37,594.8 38,821.9 40,337.2 Surplus (Deficit) (24,584.1) (25,421.9) (26,087.4) Total Volume 50,605.6 52,221.9 54,587.0 Note: Data are in millions of mi"nutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 224 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS United States-Incoming LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Incoming Traffic 1. Canada ....................... 4,263.7 ..._ ___________ _..:.,__,J 29.9% 2. Mexico ..... ... ...... .... ..... 1,445.0 3. United Kingdom ... .... ... ..... 1,443.5 4. Germany ............. .. ........ 906.0 ••••• 10.1% ---· 10.1% ••• 6.4% 5. Japan 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 .374.4 • 2.6% 6. France ..... .. ....... .. ... 356.2 • 2.5% 7. Brazil 00 00. 00 00. 00 00 00 ... 00 00 00.329.9 • 2.3% 8. Australia 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00. 310.3 • 2.2% 9. Korea, Rep. 00 00. 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 256.1 • 1.8% 10. Dominican Republic ..... ... ...... 244.2 • 1.7% 11 Italy 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 208.6 I 1.5% 12. Philippines. 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00120.9 I 0.8% 13. Colombia 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00 00 00 00 00.117.2 I 0.8% 14. Jamaica ........................ 100.1 I 0.7% 15. India 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .. 00. 00 .95.2 I 0.7% 16. El Salvador 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0083.6 I 0.6% 17. China 00. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 .79.3 I 0.6% 18. Guatemala 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .74.6 I 0.5% 19. Ecuador ......................... 40.5 I 0.3% 20. Pakistan .... ... ... ... .. ........ 13.6 I 0.1% TOTAL 14,249.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 Incoming 13,010.7 Outgoing 37,594.8 Surplus !Deficit) 124,584.1) Total Volume 50,605.6 2001 13,400.0 38,821.9 125,421.9) 52,221.9 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 2002 14,249.8 40,337.2 126,087.4) 54,587.0 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 225 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Uzbekistan LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Russia .......................... 33.9 55.7% 2. Kazakhstan ....................... 6.2 10.2% 3. Kyrgyzstan ... ... ... ... .. ... .. 2.8 • 4.6% 4. Tajikistan ......................... 2.3 • 3.8% 5. Ukraine .......................... 1.5 • 2.5% 6. Turkmenistan .... ..... ... ...... 1.4 • 2.3% 7. Belarus ... .... ...... ......... .... 0.5 I 0.9% 8. Azerbaijan .......... ... .... ..... 0.4 I 0.6% 9. Armenia ....... ................ 0.2 I 0.4% 10. Georgia .. ........................ 0.2 I 0.3% 11 Moldova ................... .. ... 0.1 I 0.1% Others ...... .... .. .... ....... .. 11.4 18.7% TOTAL 60.8 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 54.3 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 71.4 58.3 60.8 Surplus !Deficit) (17.0) n.a. n.a. Total Volume 125.7 n.a. n.a. Note: Data are in millions of mi"hutes of 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 226 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Yemen LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. Saudi Arabia ............ .... ..... 19.0 -----------· 43.2% 2. United Arab Emirates ............... 5.0 •••• 11.4% 3. Egypt ............................ 2.5 5.7% 4. United States ... ... .. .. ... ... ... 1.7 3.9% 5. Jordan ... ...... ... .... ........ 1.5 • 3.4% 6. United Kingdom ................... 1.5 • 3.4% 7. Iraq .... ...... ....... ... 1.0 • 2.3% 8. Sudan ... ......... ... .. ...... 0.8 I 1.9% 9. Bahrain .................... ..... 0.7 I 1.5% 10. Germany ........... ... ........... 0.6 I 1.5% 11. Syria ............................ 0.6 I 1.5% 12. China ....... ... ........ ......... 0.6 I 1.3% 13. France ........................... 0.5 I 1.2% 14. Qatar ....... .................... 0.5 I 1.1% 15. Kuwait .. .... ... .. ...... .. 0.4 I 1.0% 16. Lebanon ......................... 0.4 I 1.0% 17. Ethiopia ..... .................... 0.4 I 0.9% 18. Djibouti .......................... 0.3 I 0.7% 19. Italy ............................. 0.3 I 0.7% 20. Oman .... .. .. ... ........... 0.3 I 0.7% Others ... .... ............ ... ... 5.1 --- 11.6% TOTAL 43.9 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 105.6 n.a. 186.9 Outgoing 36.3 43.1 43.9 Surplus (Deficit) 69.3 n.a. 143.0 Total Volume 142.0 n.a. 230.8 Note: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched telecommunications traffic © PRIMETRICA INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 227 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Zambia LARGEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUTES, 2002 Destination Minutes (millions) Percent of Outgoing Traffic 1. South Africa ...................... 5.5 35.1% 2. Kenya ............................ 1.7 11 .2% 3. United Kingdom .... ......... ... .. 1.4 9.0% 4. Zimbabwe ......... ........ ...... 1.3 8.1% 5. United States ..................... 0.7 4.6% 6. Tanzania ........ ............... .. 0.7 4.6% 7. India ........... ...... .. .. 0.5 1111 3.2% 8. Botswana ............... .. .... 0.4 II 2.3% 9. Malawi ... ..... ............. 0.3 • 1.7% 10. Congo, Dem. Rep ................... 0.2 I 1.3% 11 Australia ... ..... ... .......... .. 0.2 I 1.0% 12. HongKong ....................... 0.1 I 0.9% 13. Italy .............. .... .... .... 0.1 I 0.8% 14. Namibia ..... .. ......... ...... .... 0.1 I 0.7% 15. Japan ............................ 0.1 I 0.7% 16. Canada ... ...... .. ........ .. .. 0.1 I 0.6% 17. Netherlands ....... .... .. .. .. .... 0.1 I 0.6% 18. Germany ......................... 0.1 I 0.6% 19. Sweden ................... ...... 0.1 I 0.5% 20. Belgium ............... ....... .... 0.1 I 0.5% Others .. ..... ... ......... .. .. 1.8 11.7% TOTAL 15.6 NATIONAL TRAFFIC BALANCE Minutes 2000 2001 2002 Incoming 30.5 n.a. n.a. Outgoing 13.2 14.3 15.6 Surplus (Deficit) 17.3 n.a. n.a. Total Volume 43.7 n.a. n,a. Note: Data are in millions of mihutes of public switched telecommunications traffic. 228 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS Methodology The traffic statistics in TeleCeography 2004 were compiled primarily from an independ­ ent survey of telecommunications service providers. For some countries and carriers, traffic data have been estimated based upon annual reports, government 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 TeleCeography 2004, however, readers should keep in mind the following issues. Public Switched Network vs. Private Line Traffic Traffic volumes in TeleCeography 2004 are generally reported in minutes. In most cases, the statistics refer to paid minutes on public switched circuits and thus include voice as well as fax traffic. Traffic volumes include traffic carried by wholesale carriers that is resold by "pure" resellers. These resellers do not own or lease their own international transmission facilities. Instead, they resell the services of other carriers; thus, pure resale traffic is counted as part of the minutes for the facilities-based carrier whose services are resold. Many companies act both as carriers of traffic and as reselllers of other car­ riers services. To avoid double counting, TeleGeographys carrier survey specifically counts only traffic actually carried by the company. Traffic carried by International Simple Resale (ISR) carriers is also included. ISR carriers lease international private lines (IPLs) for switched services by interconnecting their IPLs to the public switched network at one or both ends and resell this capacity. Illicit Bypass While traffic volumes include ISR, they generally do not include illicit bypass traffic that bypasses the international settlement rate regime. One form of illicit bypass is Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoiP) For an overview of Voice-over-IP traffic volumes, see "VoiP Routes and Traffic." Cross-Border Traffic Neighboring countries may not classify local cross-border traffic in the same way. That is, one country may treat some cross-border traffic as domestic while its neighbor counts all such traffic as international. Transit Traffic Unless otherwise stated TeleCeography 2004 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. © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 229 COUNTRY TRAFFIC STATISTICS 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 Te/eCeography 2004 and data published in prior TeleGeography reports or Direction of Traffic. The variations reflect corrections and/or revised data subsequently provided to TeleGeography. 230 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Bandwidth BANDWIDTH 232 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 200 3 Bandwidth The statistics and analysis presented on the following pages are excerpted from International Bandwidth 2003, published in March 2003. During the latter half of the 1990s, the number of bandwidth providers exploded as telecom deregulation and investor optimism fueled the rapid deployment of fiber-optic networks. Rather than piecing together "half circuits" from multiple monopoly incum­ bents, customers seeking to purchase cross-border capacity could choose from a host of providers and networks. The onslaught of bankruptcies has, over the past year, reversed the momentum of the industry from proliferation to consolidation. Many com­ panies have been broken up or liquidated, and many who have emerged from bank­ ruptcy proceedings have done so after dropping some of their network assets. Some carriers have also made tactical retreats where conditions proved unfavorable. With as many as 20 or more providers still serving major routes in Europe and the U.S., how­ ever; consolidation has yet to make a noticeable impact. Aggregate bandwidth supply on many routes remains staggering. Major cities in the U.S. for example, are routinely traversed by a thousand (or more) pairs of optical fiber while pan-European networks have laid hundreds of pairs through population centers. Only a small portion of those fibers are actually lit: on average, one-quarter of poten­ tial wavelengths on 15 percent of available fiber pairs in North America As a result, only five percent of potential bandwidth is active in North America [only three percent of international bandwidth in Europe) However minor that proportion might seem, the amount of lit capacity it represents is more than substantial. Chicago, for example, has 23.6 Tbps running through it on domestic networks; London has 7.3 Tbps on interna­ tional networks alone. Such tremendous bandwidth isnt the exclusive domain of inter­ national commercial centers, as second-tier cities [e.g., Cleveland and Basel) along important routes also boast terabits per second of capacity. The potential capacity is even more astonishing, reaching into the hundreds of terabits per second. The explosive growth that had come to characterize the industry, however; soon gave way to another; equally dramatic trend: falling prices. While many carriers had taken price declines into account in their business plans no one expected prices to fall so far so fast. The frequency with which providers have modified their prices in the past year suggests that few carriers have a "grand strategy" with respect to price. Given the cur­ rent state of turmoil in the industry, it is not surprising that carriers are having diffi­ culties adjusting to the market. Some companies have simply kept prices high and accept that they will win little new business. Others have adjusted their prices on an almost monthly basis, in an effort to adapt to the changes they perceive in the market. Interestingly, there is little evidence, thus far; to support the widespread theory that carriers coming out of Chapter 11 are using their reduced debt levels to price services more aggressively than rival carriers (see Figure 1. London-Paris STM-1 Annual Lease Price by Carrier, 2002-2003) The overarching factor driving prices is the dire state of the bandwidth market- and, by extension bandwidth sellers financial health. Many bandwidth providers will acknowledge that circuit prices are ruinously low. However, many suppliers have found BANDWIDTH © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 233 BANDWIDTH Figure 1. London-Paris STM-1 Annual lease Price by Carrier, 2002-2003 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 c $6,000 Q) u ;t $5,000 Q) " .3 $4,000 (ij :::> § $3,000 X: $2,000 $1,000 ~"----- ---------- 2 ------------------------ 5 --- Stable Carrier ----- Troubled Carrier -------- Bankrupt Carrier roL-~-~~-~~-~-~~-~~-~~ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Notes: Prices reflect STM-1 annual lease prices offered by major carriers from January 2002 through January 2003. Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 themselves long on capacity and short on revenues. Unless they cut prices to meet or beat their rivals, they will face the prospect of no revenues. Consequently, many sup­ pliers have opted to slash prices, even selling below long-term costs. The volatility that has characterized the international bandwidth market has left many in the industry somewhat jaded. The astronomical levels of potential supply and the technological advances which produced them no longer inspire awe among industry players. Plummeting prices, as well, seem a quotidian feature of the bandwidth mar­ ket. Even bankruptcy has lost its former stigma-the first major bankruptcies were considered headline material while more recent bankruptcies have trouble making it to the front page. Perhaps the most shocking market characteristic at this point is rela­ tive stability. With network construction almost non-existent, demand slowing, and price declines easing, the bandwidth industry seems more static now than it has dur­ ing the past five years. Indeed, no news may be good news. 234 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 1. Lit Submarine Cable Capacity Trends by Route, 1999-2005 1999 Lit Submarine Cable Capacity (Gbps) Fully 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Upgraded Trans-Atlantic 163.0 533.0 1,843.0 2,022.4 2,337.9 2,641.9 2,982.3 12,297.9 Trans-Pacific 42.9 182.9 262.9 1,042.9 1,042.9 1,230.9 1,456.5 6,502.9 Intra-Asia 25.0 40.0 560.0 560.0 560.0 670.0 802.0 15,810.0 U.S.-Latin America 13.1 213.1 293.1 303.1 303.1 345.6 396.6 5,165.6 Europe-Africa-Asia 21.1 31.1 31.1 41.1 41.1 49.1 58.7 251.1 Notes: Capacity figures denote lit, protected capacity at the end of the respective year. Projected capacity assumes cables with upgradeable capacity will increase total capacity 20 percent each year until fully upgradeable capacity is achieved. Intra-Asia capacity includes cables with landings in both Hong Kong and Japan. Trans-Pacific capacity excludes Southern Cross and PacRim East Trans-Atlantic capacity excludes Atlantis-2. Cables retired prior to year-end 2003 are excluded from Fully Upgraded capacity. Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 235 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 2. Major Submarine Networks: Length, Cost, and Capacity Ready Construction for Service Length Cost Cable Capacity (Gbps) (RFS) (km) (US$ Millions) RFS March 2003 Maximum Baltic Sea Baltica Mar-97 437 $16 5 5 15 Germany-Denmark 2 Dec-95 60 $3 5 5 15 Kattegat Aug-95 180 $13 3 3 15 Sweden-Estonia Jun-95 240 $7 3 3 15 Sweden-Lithuania Nov-97 200 $4 3 3 20 Black Sea Fiber Optic Cable System Sep-01 1,300 $55 5 5 20 Georgia -Russia Dec-00 433 n.a. 3 3 10 Europe-Africa-Asia FLAG Europe-Asia Nov-97 28,000 $1,600 10 10 10 SAFE Apr-02 13,500 $290 10 10 130 SAT-3/WASC Apr-02 14,350 $507 20 20 120 SeaMeWe-3 Sep-99 38,000 $1,173 10 20 40 SeaMeWe-4 Dec-04 38,000 $720 n.a. n.a n.a. Intra-Asia A2A Cable Network Dec-04 4,600 n.a. 40 40 1,920 APCN Feb-97 5,234 $550 5 10 10 APCN-2 Dec-01 19,000 $1,060 160 160 2,560 Australia-Japan Cable Dec-01 12,000 $550 40 40 320 C2C Cable Network Dec-01 17,000 $2,100 160 160 7,680 East Asia Crossing Jan-01 19,500 $1,280 80 80 2,560 FLAG North Asia Loop/ Jun-01 9,504 $750 120 120 2,880 REACH North Asia Loop Guam-Philippines (G-P) Cable System Mar-99 3,600 $100 5 5 40 i2i Cable Network Apr-02 11,400 $650 160 160 8,400 Korea-Japan Cable Network Mar-02 500 $60 50 50 2,880 Nava-1 Dec-04 4,750 n.a. 120 120 2,400 Thai Ia nd-1 nd onesi a-Sin g a ~ore Nov-03 1,200 $40 30 30 320 Intra-Europe FAR ICE Dec-03 1,394 n.a. 40 40 640 Finland Estonia Connection Jan-00 250 n.a. 5 5 3,840 Tyco Northern Europe Mar-02 600 n.a. 160 160 3,840 Tyco Western Euro~e Jun-02 3,578 $90 120 120 3,840 Irish Sea ESAT-1 Aug-99 200 $13 5 5 960 ESAT-2 Sep-99 240 $16 5 5 960 Salas A~r-99 200 $20 15 15 60 Mediterranean ALPAL-2 Jul -02 312 $15 3 3 160 Lev Submarine System Mar-99 2,600 $66 5 5 40. MedNautilus Submarine Syste,m Nov-01 7,000 n.a 40 40 3,840 Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 236 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 200 3 BANDWIDTH Submarine Cable Systems Figure 2. Major Submarine Networks: Length, Cost, and Capacity Ready Construction for Service Length Cost Cable Capacity (Gbps) (RFS) (km) (US$ Millions) RFS March 2003 Maximum North Sea NorSea Com Jul-99 930 $30 240 240 960 UK-German~ 6 Oct-98 560 $50 40 40 80 Persian Gulf Fiber O~tic Gulf Jun-98 1,300 $81 15 15 30 U.S. Domestic Al aska United Feb-99 3,218 $125 3 3 10 Global West Network Sep-01 930 $160 160 160 15,360 NorthStar Oct-99 3,229 n.a. 20 20 30 U.S.-Asia China-U.S. Cable Network Jan-00 30,476 $1 ,400 80 80 80 Japan-U.S. Cable Network Sep-01 22,682 $1,000 80 400 640 Pacific Crossing-1 Dec-99 20,900 $1 ,200 20 80 640 Southern Cross Cable Network Nov-00 30,500 $1 ,300 20 240 480 TPC 5 Jan-97 24,602 $1 ,240 10 20 20 T~co Trans~acific Dec-02 22,300 $1,900 460 460 5,120 U.S.-Europe Apollo Jan-03 13,000 $1,200 320 320 3,200 Atlantic Crossing-1 May-98 14,500 $750 40 140 160 Columbus-Ill Dec-99 9,833 $236 10 40 40 FLAG Atlantic-1 Jun-01 14,500 $1,100 160 160 2,400 Gemini Cable System Feb-98 12,115 $600 10 60 60 Hibernia Atlantic Apr-01 12,200 $770 160 160 1,920 TAT-12/13 Sep-96 12,930 $750 10 30 30 TAT-14 Apr-01 15,295 $1,400 640 640 640 Tyco Transatlantic Jun-01 13,000 n.a 280 460 2,560 Yellow/Atlantic Crossing-2 Se~-00 6,000 $800 320 320 1,280 U.S.-Latin America Americas- II Aug-00 8,373 $365 80 80 80 ARCOS Dec-01 8,600 $400 15 15 960 Atlantis-2 Feb-00 8,500 $230 5 20 20 Bahamas Internet Cable System Jul-01 600 n.a. 15 15 240 Emergia Mar-01 25,000 $1,600 40 40 1,920 GlobeNet Oct-00 22,770 $1,000 80 80 1,360 Maya-1 Oct-00 4,400 $152 8 8 20 Mid-Atlantic Crossing Jun-00 7,500 $415 20 30 320 Pan-American Crossing Mar-00 9,000 $280 10 20 240 South American Crossing Sep-00 20,000 $800 40 60 1,280 Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 237 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Pacific Coast) Oahu Spencer Beach Tyco Transpacific PC·1 Southern Cron 1i co Tr1n1 acilic TPC5 China· US ___ J_a an·US China-US PC·1 Source: TeleG eography re search, Internationa l Bandwidth 2003 238 TELEGEOGR A PH Y 200 4 Global Wesl Nerwork b o Harbour Pmnte San Francisco Monrerey -- Morro Bay ___ San Lu is Obispo Grover Beach © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRI CA INC 2003 BANDWIDTH figure 4. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in North America (Atlantic Coast) & Caribbean New Yo rk Stat1on.1 MoSl•t Booth fAT 12/13 Bellport 0 Yellow/AC 2 Stl1rloy 0-- Apollo AC· I Brookhaven MAC Crab Me• dow Beach b Lor1g Beach FA· l New Jersey Stations Wall Township Tyco Transatlanu c Apollo Manasquan Gemini Tu ckerton TAT· 14 GlobeNe1 New York/New Jersey Source: TeleGeograpl1y research, lncerna1ional Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetri ca Inc 2003 © PRIMET RI CA IN C 2003 TE LE GEOGRAP HY 2004 239 BANDWIDTH Puerto V1e10 Camur1 Arica Source: TeleGeography research, /ncernatianal Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica Inc. 2003 240 TEL EGEOG RA PHY 20 0 4 PR I ME TRI CA. IN C 200 3 BANDWIDTH Figure 6. Map of Major Submarine Cable Systems in Europe Seyd1sfjbdur 0 FunninosfJ&dur 0 O Ounnet Bay Columbu1·lll Conil Estepona 0 0 Tdouan Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 rfJ PAI MET RI CA IN C 2003 Ses Covetes ALPAL Cornwall S1at1 on1 Apollu TAT 14 Yellow/AC 2 Burle AC 1 Whttos nds Bav FA I S>ew1ac~ TAT 1211 ::-0 Lond s End FLAG Europe Asia Porthc:urno Gemrn1 SeaMeWe-3 0 Goonh1lly Downs ESAT I Sen nen Cove Helsinki Stavsn~ E~ .. /j f~C Tallrnn Kardla ~·\\•l3~ Stroemma H1oerring 0 Ystad Ged se r~•.,, o Sytt Ribnitz • Kolobrzeg Germany· Pedersker Denmark 2 Odessa Alexandna 0 0 Suez © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 T EL EGEOGRA PHY 200 4 241 BANDWIDTH Oo11nl11 SAT-l(WASC 1Jbrev1lle Mtun11111.,._ ___ _ __JIA=ff;_ _ _ _ __ -/ .... Source: TeleG eography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 242 TELEGEOGAAPHY 2004 © PAIMETAICA INC 2003 Figure 8. Map of Ma;or Submarine Cable Systems in East Asia Hong Kong Sta lions Tunyku "" Source: TeleGeography research, lntornational Bandwidth 2003 llJ PA IMET A I CA IN C Z003 Tokyo Stations Wada Krta11J araki A11gaura Maruyama Ch1kura Mwrn Nmom1ya Em1 0 0 BANDWIDTH PC·1 PC·1 Chio1·US FLAG NALJReach NAL APCN ·2 Japan-U.S. EAC PC-I Japan-U.S Aus1ral1a-Japan APCN·2 Ct11na·U.S C2C cn Fl.AG Europe-Asia TPC 5 ryco Transpac1 flc © PnMetrica, Inc. 2003 TE L EGEOG AAP HY 200 4 243 BANDWIDTH QKarerlH Mumbai ill en Chenna1 ---=------- I Cochon Mt Lavinia 0 I Source: Te leGeography resea rch, International Bandwidth 2003 2 44 TELE GE OGRAPHY 2004 Pyapon Q Pe1cJlabun 0 Oa nang 0 0 Jakarta Stations .o Pll rlh © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 fJ PRIMETR I CA INC 2003 BANDWIDTH Suva Source: TeleGeography research, lnternaiional Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PAIMETRICA I NC 2003 TELEGEOGAAPHY 200 4 2 4 5 BANDWIDTH Terrestrial Networks Figure 1. Overlay Map of Pan-European Terrestrial Networks Madridd Rank City 1. London Frankfurt 3. Paris 4. Amsterdam 5. Hamburg 6. Brusse ls Stockholm 8. Copenhagen Oii;seldorf Berlin London 0 0 Barcelona Marseill e Number of Providers 28 28 24 23 21 19 19 18 18 18 Oslo Rank 12. 14. 16. 17. 20. Stockholm Helsinki 0 Number of Bandwidth Provide rs 30 15 City Number of Providers Munich 18 Madrid 17 Milan 17 Zliich 16 v ienna 16 Rotterdam 15 Stuttgart 14 L yon 14 Marsei lle 14 Geneva 13 Notes: Bandwidth providers inc lude operators ottering capacity on th ei r own network build and/or vi a fiber leased from other network providers. Providers included were tl1o se who offered cross-border connectivity at 155 Mbps lor higher) as part of th eir standard service offerings. Maps are designed to illustrate intercity connectivity and do not necessarily reflect the exact physica l routing of fiber Source: TeleGeography re search. International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 246 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 a PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 BANDWIDTH figure 2. Overlay Map of U.S. Terrestrial Networks Minneapolis Buff ale 9" Boston San Francisco Sacramento San Jose Los Angeles Number of Bandwidth Providers 30 15 Rank City Number of Providers Rank City Number of Providers 1. New York 27 T ampa 17 2. Atlanta 26 17. Sacramento 16 3. Ch icago 25 Minneapolis 16 4. Los Angeles 23 Boston 16 w ashington, DC 23 Raleigh 16 6. Dal las 22 21. Phoenix 15 7. Phi ladelphia 21 Portland 15 Miami 21 Au stin 15 9. Seattl e 19 San Francisco 15 10. Baltimore 18 Buffalo 15 Newa rk 18 San Jose 15 12. Houston 17 Albany 15 13. Denver 17 c I eve land 15 Detro it 17 Orlando 17 Notes: Bandwidth providers include operators offering capacity on their own network build and/or via fiber leased from other network providers. Providers included were those who offered connectivi ty to three or more states at 155 Mbps lor higher) as part of their standard service offerings. Maps are design ed to illustrate intercity connectivity and do not necessa rily reflect the exact physica l routing of fib er. Source: TeleGeog raphy res earch, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 rn PA I ME T RI CA IN C 20 03 TE LEGEOGRAP HY 2004 247 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: length, Connectivity, and MANs 2002 2003 Route Route Cities Route Route Cities Terrestrial Network kms miles Connected MANs kms miles Connected MANs North America 360networks 53,097 33,000 46 3 53,097 33,000 78 22 ALL TEL 11 ,907 7,400 90 0 11 ,907 7,400 90 0 Americ as Fiber Network 12,872 8,000 39 18 12,872 8,000 58 18 AT&T 115,848 72,000 176 12 176 12 Broadwing Commun ications 29,767 18,500 79 0 29,767 18,500 79 0 BTl 7,080 4,400 30 0 7,080 4,400 30 0 Cable & Wireless 30,191 18,761 36 0 30,191 18,761 36 0 Call-Net Enterprises 14,000 8,700 47 1 14,000 8,700 47 1 Cambrian Communications 5 5 5 5 Cogent Communications 31,376 19,500 31 23 31 ,376 19,500 31 23 Columbia Transcom 447 278 7 0 447 278 7 0 Digital Teleport 9,171 5,700 28 10 9,171 5,700 28 10 Dominion Telecom 16,090 10,000 58 10 16,090 10,000 74 22 Duke Net 2,574 1,600 18 12 2,574 1,600 19 15 Electric Lightwave, Inc. 7,241 4,500 19 6 7,241 4,500 19 6 EPIK Communications 2,977 1,850 12 10 2,977 1,850 12 10 France Telecom North America 25,744 16,000 15 1 25,744 16,000 22 2 Global Crossing 31,762 19,740 115 16 31,762 19,740 115 16 Hydro One Telecom Inc. 4,000 2,486 21 1 4,000 2,486 25 1 ICG Communications 8,850 5,500 15 0 8,850 5,500 15 0 ITC DeltaCom 16,058 9,980 48 0 16,235 10,088 48 0 Level 3 25,744 16,000 57 26 28,158 17,500 62 26 Metromedia Fiber Network 16,090 10,000 23 22 16,090 10,000 23 22 MCI 96,921 60,237 106 106 96,921 60,237 106 106 NEON Communications 4,031 2,505 59 16 4,031 2,505 59 16 Norlight Telecommunications 8,850 5,500 55 0 9,654 6,000 55 0 Onvoy 3,218 2,000 13 2 3,218 2,000 13 2 PalmettoNet 2,574 1,600 16 0 3,862 2,400 42 0 Progress Telecom 13,242 8,230 27 27 13,242 8,230 27 27 Qwest 41 ,030 25,500 145 0 41,030 25,500 145 0 Southern Telecom 1,931 1,200 12 4 1,963 1,220 12 4 Sprint 54,947 34,150 152 13 54,947 34,150 152 17 T-Systems International 11 0 11 0 Teleglobe 24,000 14,914 20 3 24,000 14,914 20 3 TeliaSonera 18,000 11,185 11 0 18,000 11 ,185 11 0 TELUS 16,500 10,253 45 24 18,390 11,428 53 25 Time Warn er Telecom 27,981 17,390 44 0 27,981 17,390 44 0 Touch America 33,789 21,000 47 1 33,789 21,000 49 1 Tyco Telecommunications 5 0 5 0 WiiTel Communications 53,097 33,000 113 34 53,097 33,000 113 34 XO Communications 25,744 16,000 66 48 25,744 16,000 66 48 Xspedius Communications 47,948 29,800 44 0 47,948 29,800 44 0 Latin America Alestra 5,700 3,542 36 8 5,700 3,542 36 8 Avante l 8,000 4,971 43 3 8,000 4,971 43 3 Beste I 6,308 3,920 26 4 6,308 3,920 26 4 Embratel 28,800 17,896 19 8 28,800 17,896 19 8 Notes: Terrestrial systems listed include those on which capacity may be leased in increments of at least 155 Mbps lone STM-1} as part of standard products and service offerings. European system~ include only cross-border European networks. Source: TeleGeography research, lnternptional Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 248 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 BANDWIDTH Figure 3. Major Terrestrial Networks: Length, Connectivity, and MANs (continued) 2002 2003 Route Route Cities Route Route Cities Terrestrial Network kms miles Connected MANs kms miles Connected MANs Latin America (continued) Geodex Communications 11,000 6,835 13 8 11,000 6,835 13 10 Global Crossing 3,506 2,179 4 0 3,506 2,179 4 0 lmpsat 8,800 5,468 25 15 8,800 5,468 25 15 lntelig 15,000 9,321 123 10 15,000 9,321 123 10 Latin American Nautilus 5,400 3,356 3 0 5,400 3,356 3 0 Marcatel 2,000 1,243 14 5 2,000 1,243 14 5 Silica Networks 3,300 2,051 7 0 3,300 2,051 7 0 Telemar Norte Leste 33,000 20,506 167 76 33,000 20,506 167 76 Europe 4cE 45 45 0 Belgacom 15,300 9,507 13 6 16,500 10,253 15 6 BT Ignite 57,000 35,420 33 0 48,000 29,827 33 0 Cable & Wireless 7,500 4,661 29 3 7,500 4,661 29 3 CECOM 2,500 1,554 9 0 3,500 2,175 11 0 COLT 20,000 12,428 57 32 20,000 12,428 58 32 Crisscross Communications 8,666 5,385 30 5 8,666 5,385 30 5 eTel 4,500 2,796 10 8 5,000 3,107 10 8 Fibernet 13,400 8,327 51 2 51 2 Fin net International 18,500 11,496 20 13 18,500 11,496 20 13 France Telecom 20,000 12,428 40 4 23,000 14,292 40 4 Global Crossing 24,986 15,526 33 7 24,986 15,526 33 7 GlobaiConnect 2,100 1,305 5 5 2,100 1,305 5 5 Golden Telecom 3 1 4 2 lnteroute 14,500 9,010 46 9 14,500 9,010 46 12 KPN 8,000 4,971 24 8,000 4,971 24 Lambda Net Communications 22,000 13,671 106 13 22,000 13,671 110 14 LOCOM Networks 11,000 6,835 26 26 12,000 7,457 33 33 Level3 6,000 3,728 16 9 6,000 3,728 16 9 LinxTelecom 1,200 746 3 0 10,000 6,214 16 0 Memorex Telex Communications 3,000 1,864 15 0 3,000 1,864 15 0 Metromedia Fiber Network 10 10 10 10 MCI 19,159 11,905 75 44 19,159 11,905 75 44 Rostelecom 53 0 57 0 Song Networks 47 22 47 22 T·Systems International 38 8 46 9 TOG 9,500 5,903 21 0 9,500 5,903 21 0 Telecom ltalia 9,100 5,655 10 0 12,000 7,457 13 5 Telekom Austria 11 0 18 0 Telenor Global Services 5,000 3,107 7 1 5,000 3,107 7 1 TeliaSonera 22,000 13,671 39 4 35,398 13,671 39 4 liscali International Network 14,000 8,700 47 7 14,000 8,700 47 7 TransTelecom 45,000 27,963 158 0 46,000 28,584 158 0 Tyco Telecommunications 7 0 5,764 3,582 8 0 Utfors 3,500 2,175 6 6 3,500 2,175 7 6 Verizon Europe 5,910 3,672 8 0 5,910 3,672 8 0 Versatel 4,000 2,486 49 45 49 45 Via tel 7,000 4,350 19 0 7,000 4,350 19 0 Notes: Terrestrial systems listed include those on which capacity may be leased in increments of at least 155 Mbps (one STM-1) as part of standard products and service offerings. European systems include only cross-border European networks. Source: TeleGeography research, International Bandwidth 2003 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 249 BANDWIDTH 250 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Internet Backbones INTERNET BACKBONES 252 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 200 3 INTERNET BACKBONES International Internet Backbones The statistics and analysis presented on the following pages are excerpted from Global Internet Geography 2004 published in August 2003. Internet traffic growth rates have been the subject of considerable speculation before, during, and after the dotcom boom. One common tenet of early Internet apocrypha stipulated that traffic was doubling every 100 days. Conversely, in the aftermath of the telecom sector implosion, conventional wisdom held that Internet traffic was increasing far more slowly than previously believed. In Global Internet Geography 2004 TeleGeography assembled exclusive international Internet traffic and bandwidth data that uncover the state of the market and provide insights into its future. Supply Despite the lingering malaise in the telecom sector, global Internet backbones evolved at a rapid pace during 2003. The international Internet capacity growth rate reaccel­ erated increasing 74 percent for 2003, up from just 38 percent in 2002. The renewed growth came as a result of rapid network deployments in all regions. Asia led the way, growing 114 percent, while Latin Americas capacity grew 105 percent (see Figure 1. International Internet Bandwidth Growth by Region 2000-2003) Even the more mature Internet market of Europe grew faster in 2003 than in the previous year. Europe, which accounts for 78 percent of the world s cross-border bandwidth experi­ enced an international capacity increase of 67 percent, an increase over the 33 per­ cent growth rate recorded in 2002. Figure 1. International Internet Bandwidth Growth by Region, 2000-2003 ..c: 500% 0 t5 £ t:J ·~ 400% t:J c: ctl a:l 300% Q) c: c: ctl 200% c: .g ctl c: 100% c: ctl ::I 0% c: c: Africa Asia Europe Latin U.S. & World X: America Canada Notes: Data as of mid-year. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 253 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 2. Transoceanic Internet Traffic and Capacity, 2003-2006 2,000 ::11,800 ..0 1,600 ·~ 1,400 1,200 u -g 1,000 " - 800 :E " 600 ~-Q) 400 E 200 c: 0 2003 Trans-Atlantic • Internet Bandwidth Peak Internet Traffic 2004 2005 2006 Trans-Atlantic Internet Bandwidth (Gbps) Peak Internet Traffic (Gbps) Average Internet Traffic (Gbps) Trans-Pacific Internet Bandwidth (Gbps) Peak Internet Traffic (Gbps) Average Internet Traffic (Gbps) 450 ::1 400 ..0 (!) ·" 350 ·~ 300 c. 250 -c 200 - 150 100 c: 50 Trans-Pacific • Internet Bandwidth • Peak Internet Traffic • Average Internet Traffic 0 --· 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 388 648 1,082 100 167 279 70 117 195 92 153 256 28 47 78 20 33 56 2006 20116 1,806 466 326 427 130 93 Notes: Traffic projections beyond 2003 assume 67 percent annual average traffic growth and constant peak-to-average traffic ratios. Internet capacity estimates assume 67 percent annual growth. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Traffic TeleGeographys first systematic research on Internet traffic suggests that growth rates are in fact remarkably robust-at least on international routes. Based on data from the first quarter of 2003, international Internet traffic is growing at an annual rate of 67 percent. While this growth rate is lower than some may have predicted, interna­ tional Internet traffic would double every 16 months if the first-quarter trend contin­ ues. Furthermore, the results of the research show that traffic is growing as fast as the underlying IP capacity-indicating a rational approach to bandwidth deployment by network operators. As a result TeleGeography predicts that trans-Atlantic Internet bandwidth will increase to over 1 Tbps by 2005 to keep pace with traffic growth (see Figure 2. Transoceanic Internet Traffic and Capacity, 2003-2006) Pricing Transit pricing is rarely transparent. Even list prices-which can exceed market prices by a factor of three-are in short supply. Based on anonymous survey research TeleGeography has collected wholesale IP transit prices for access to major backbones. N~t surprisingly, the price of IP transit has fallen significantly in recent years. Tele:Geography research reveals that, in the second quarter of 2003, the median price of IP transit in London continued to fall, declining to $100 per Mbps for a 155 Mbps 254 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 3. Median STM-1 IP Transit Prices in london, 2000-2003 $800 $700 5 C/) $600 2 " -High Median ._._Low c. ..0 $500 :;; $400 c. Q) .~ $300 a: >- £ $200 c: 0 $100 $0 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Jun-03 Notes: Data prior to 2003 is based on prices on the Band-X London IPTransit Exchange. Source: TeleGeography research and Band-X Ltd., Global internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 commitment (see Figure 3. Median STM-1 IP Transit Prices in London, 2000-2003) The U.S., however, has the lowest and most uniform prices for IP transit. Unlike in Europe, where prices still vary among cities, transit prices tend to exhibit parity across major U.S. cities. Prices in developing transit markets in Asia have much further to drop before reaching levels similar to Europe and the U.S. Our comparison of pricing strategies casts doubt on a common theory on the effect of bankruptcy in the market. There is little evidence, thus far, to support the widespread belief that carriers coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy are using their reduced debt levels to price services more aggressively than rival carriers. Companies that have emerged from bankruptcy are rarely the lowest-priced provider in the markets sur­ veyed by TeleGeography. Often, companies that are on the edge of bankruptcy are the ones charging the lowest transit prices. Making a Comeback After the slow pace of growth in 2002, the supply of International Internet bandwidth resumed rapid growth during 2003. But will this rate of growth continue? In theory, international Internet traffic on current networks could double before users see a seri­ ous degradation in network performance. Will providers let deployments slip while traffic catches up to capacity? Probably not. However, if consolidation continues, some providers may withdraw IP transit services from certain regions or cities, while other providers may exit the transit business alto­ gether: Narrowing the field a bit further could have a stabilizing impact on prices. So far, this has not happened. © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 255 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 4. Interregional Internet Bandwidth, 2003 4,397.4 Mbps Notes: Data as of mid-2003. Interregional Internet bandwidth below 1,000 Mbps not depicted. Source: TeleGeography research, Global internet Geography 2004 Figure 5. Map of Major Interregional Internet Routes, 2003 S~oult c!o•k•yo _________ lllllli._s.a•n•F•ra•n•ci.sc•oooJk, Taipei © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 Notes: Map includes interregional Internet routes with at least 2.5 Gbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, Global internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 256 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Figure 6. Major International Internet Routes in Europe, 2003 Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth INTERNET BACKBONES Aggregate international Internet capacity (Gbps) 500 ® 100 50 10 1111---- Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 15 Gbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 257 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 7. Major International Internet Routes in Asia, 2003 Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth Aggregate international Internet capacity (Gbps) 75 (G)) 20 10 5 Seattle Los Angeles Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 2 Gbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across interna· tiona! borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, 6/obattnternet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica,lnc. 2003 258 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Aggregate international Internet capacity (Gbps) 20 ® 10 5 1111--- INTERNET BACKBONES Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth Lima Qll __ .. __ .__, Santiagoo•••••l Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 975 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 259 INTERNET BACKBONES Washington, DC Aggregate international Internet capacity (Mbps) 1500 G) 600 300 700 --- Johannesburg CapeTown Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth Notes: Map includes internationallnterpet routes with at least 75 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter­ national borders to each Consolidated M.~tropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 260 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 INTERNET BACKBONES Figure 10. Major International Internet Routes in U.S. & Canada, 2003 Seoul Taipei Hong Kong Sydney Interregional bandwidth lntraregional bandwidth Washington, DC Aggregate international Internet capacity (Gbps) 300 50 25 10 -- Stockholm Oslo Notes: Map includes international Internet routes with at least 975 Mbps of aggregate capacity. Figures represent Internet bandwidth connected across inter· national borders to each Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area or equivalent. Domestic routes are omitted. Data as of mid-2003. Source: TeleGeography research, Global Internet Geography 2004 © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 261 INTERNET BACKBONES 262 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Reference REFERENCE National Telecommunications Indicators (A-L) Population Main Lines Main Lines GOP 2002 2002 Main Lines Lines Per Cellular Users & Cell Users & Cell Users Countries (US$ billions) (millions) 2002 (thous.) 100 ~eo~le 2002 (thous.) 2002 (thous.) ~er 100 ~eo~le Albania 4.7 3.2 220.0 6.9 851 1,071 34 Angola 11.4 13.9 85.0 0.6 130 215 2 Argentina 102.2 37.9 8,009.4 21.1 6,500 14,509 38 Armenia 2.4 3.1 542.8 17.7 72 615 20 Australia 410.6 19.6 10,590.0 54.1 12,579 23,169 118 Austria 203.0 8.1 3,988.0 49.0 6,600 10,588 130 Azerbaijan 6.1 8.2 989.2 12.1 836 1,825 22 Bahrain 7.9 0.7 175.4 26.1 389 564 84 Barbados 2.8 0.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belarus 14.3 9.9 2,967.2 29.9 465 3,432 35 Belgium 247.6 10.3 5,132.4 49.7 8,136 13,268 129 Bolivia 7.7 8.7 563.9 6.5 873 1,437 17 Botswana (a) 5.2 1.7 n.a. n.a. 415 n.a. n.a. Brazil 452.4 174.5 38,810.0 22.2 34,881 73,691 42 Bulgaria 15.6 7.9 2,922.0 37.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. Canada 715.7 31.4 19,962.1 63.5 11,849 31,811 101 Cayman Islands n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Chile 64.2 15.6 3,467.0 22.3 6,446 9,913 64 China 1,237.1 1,281.0 214,420.0 16.7 206,620 421,040 33 Costa Rica 16.9 3.9 478.9 12.1 460 939 24 Cuba n.a. 11.3 n.a. n.a. 18 n.a. n.a. Cyprus 9.1 0.8 427.4 55.9 418 845 110 Czech Republic 69.6 10.2 2,444.2 23.9 8,610 11,054 108 Denmark 174.8 5.4 3,739.2 69.6 4,478 8,217 153 Dominican Republic 21.3 8.6 582.6 6.7 1,701 2,283 26 Egypt 89.8 66.4 7,430.0 11.2 4,495 11,925 18 Estonia 6.4 1.4 475.0 35.0 881 1,356 100 Rnland 130.8 5.2 2,850.0 54.8 4,400 7,250 139 France 1,409.6 59.4 33,994.4 57.2 38,585 72,580 122 Georgia 3.3 5.2 648.5 12.5 504 1,152 22 Germany 1,976.2 82.5 53,720.0 65.1 60,043 113,763 138 Ghana 6.0 20.1 274.3 1.4 449 724 4 Greece 132.8 10.6 n.a. n.a. 9,239 n.a. n.a. Guatemala 23.3 12.0 846.0 7.1 1,577 2,423 20 Hong Kong (a) 161.5 6.8 3,277.9 48.4 6,396 9,674 143 Hungary 65.8 10.2 3,666.4 36.1 6,562 10,228 101 India (a) (b) 515.0 1,048.3 41,215.3 3.9 12,688 53,903 5 Indonesia 172.9 211.7 7,750.0 3.7 11,700 19,450 9 Iran 107.5 65.5 5,090.4 7.8 2,187 7,277 11 Ireland (a) (b) 119.9 3.9 1,975.0 50.9 2,969 4,944 127 Israel 110.4 6.5 3,100.0 47.7 6,334 9,434 145 Italy 1,180.9 57.9 27,452.0 47.4 52,316 79,768 138 Jamaica 8.0 2.6 450.0 17.2 1,400 1,850 71 Japan (a) 3,978.8 127.1 71,149.0 56.0 81,118 152,267 120 Jordan 9.3 5.2 674.5 13.0 1,220 1,894 37 Kazakhstan 24.2 14.8 2,081.9 14.1 828 2,910 20 Korea, Rep. 476.7 47.6 18,600.2 39.0 32,342 50,942 107 Kuwait 32.8 2.1 481.9 22.9 1,227 1,709 81 Kyrgyzstan 1.6 5.0 394.8 7.9 53 448 9 Latvia 8.4 2.3 701.2 30.0 917 1,618 69 Source: TeleGeography research, ITU, and World Bank © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 264 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 REFERENCE International Telephone Traffic (A-L) Outgoing Minutes (millions) Incoming Minutes (millions) Traffic Balance 2001 2002 %Change 2001 2002 %Change 2001 2002 Countries 65.4 62.0 -5.2% 317.0 400.8 26.4% 251.6 338.8 Albania 32.8 34.3 4.3% 52.2 63.9 22.4% 19.3 29.6 Angola 455.9 426.7 -6.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Argentina 34.6 36.2 4.5% n.a. 58.3 n.a. n.a. 22.1 Armenia 3 030.0 3,078.0 1.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Australia 1,480.0 1,603.0 8.3% n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Austria 29.6 32.5 9.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Azerbaijan 109.2 107.1 -1.9% 182.6 n.a. n.a. 73.4 n.a. Bahrain 37.6 44.2 17.6% n.a. 78.8 n.a. n.a. 34.6 Barbados 209.9 240.6 14.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belarus 2,155.0 2,365.4 9.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Belgium 31.9 39.1 22.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Bolivia 59.0 63.7 8.0% 41.2 45.7 10.9% (17.8) (18.0) Botswana (a) 772.2 806.0 4.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Brazil 125.0 136.0 8.8% 220.0 213.0 -3.2% 95.0 77.0 Bulgaria 7,915.0 8,183.0 3.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Canada 40.6 34.7 -14.5% n.a. 37.0 n.a. n.a. 2.3 Cayman Islands 281 .2 294.3 4.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Chile 2,040.0 2,240.0 9.8% 4,270.0 n.a. n.a. 2,230.0 n.a. China 131 .4 129.4 -1.6% 165.5 158.5 -4.2% 34.1 29.1 Costa Rica 22.4 19.2 -14.5% 258.0 282.9 9.7% 235.5 263.7 Cuba 220.2 253.6 15.2% 166.7 163.7 -1.8% (53.5) (89.9) Cyprus 424.4 475.0 11 .9% n.a. 580.0 n.a. n.a. 105.0 Czech Republic 995.0 1,050.0 5.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Denmark 227.4 222.6 -2.1% 1.714.6 n.a. n.a. 1,487.2 n.a. Dominican Re~ublic 192.3 198.4 3.2% n.a. 938.3 n.a. n.a. 739.9 Egypt 93.2 103.2 10.7% 91.9 n.a. n.a. (1.3) n.a. Estonia 485.0 490.0 1.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Finland 7,605.0 8,170.0 7.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. France 105.0 114.4 9.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Georgia 10,320.0 10,620.0 2.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Germany 46.7 58.3 24.7% 139.3 153.0 9.9% 92.5 94.7 Ghana 887.0 998.0 12.5% 891.0 n.a. n.a. 4.0 n.a. Greece 156.2 145.9 -6.6% 536.8 817.7 52.3% 380.6 671.8 Guatemala 3,487.3 3,981.1 14.2% 1,942.3 1,745.3 -10.1% (1,545.0) (2,235.7) Hong Kong (a) 326.8 327.0 0.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Hungary 586.4 660.0 12.5% 2,533.6 n.a. n.a. 1,947.2 n.a. India (a) (b) 316.2 289.4 -8.5% 365.9 429.4 17.4% 49.7 140.1 Indonesia 179.1 171.2 -4.4% 173.1 118.8 -31.4% (6.0) (52.4) Iran 1,385.0 1,395.0 0.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ireland (a) (b) 1,120.0 1,193.7 6.6% 728.0 814.1 11.8% (392.0) (379.6) Israel 5,140.0 5,840.0 13.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Italy 95.6 56.3 -41 .1% 413.8 349.6 -15.5% 318.2 293.3 Jamaica 2,575.4 2,638.5 2.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Japan (a) 185.3 198.4 7.1% 217.0 236.0 8.8% 31.7 37.6 Jordan 118.6 131.6 11.0% 206.9 260.2 25.8% 88.4 128.7 Kazakhstan 1,120.0 1,041.8 -7.0% n.a. 928.0 n.a. n.a. (113.8) Korea, Rep. 166.6 189.8 14.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Kuwait 23.5 18.3 -22.3% 42.3 44.5 5.3% 18.8 26.3 Kyrgyzstan 64.7 63.0 -2.6% 105.3 110.6 5.0% 40.6 47.6 Latvia Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VoiP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31. Fiscal year for New Zealand and Pakistan ends June 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details). c. 2001 and 2002 traffic data not directly comparable. (See country table for details). © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 265 REFERENCE National Telecommunications Indicators (L-Z) Population Main Lines Main Lines GDP 2002 2002 Main Lines Lines Per Cellular Users & Cell Users & Cell Users Countries (US$ billions) (millions) 2002 (thous.) 100 ~eo~le 2002 (thous.) 2002 (thous.) ~er 100 ~eo~le Luxembourg 20.1 0.4 n.a. n.a. 473 n.a. n.a. Macau 6.2 0.4 153.3 34.6 276 429 97 Macedonia n.a. 2.0 26.4 1.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. Malaysia (a) 95.2 24.3 4,669.9 19.2 9,241 13,911 57 Malta 3.6 0.4 207.3 52.2 277 484 122 Mauritius 4.5 1.2 327.2 27.0 350 677 56 Mexico 637.2 100.9 14,941.6 14.8 25,928 40,870 40 Moldova 1.6 4.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Namibia 2.8 1.8 121.4 6.7 150 271 15 Netherlands 413.7 16.1 10,000.0 61.9 12,100 22,100 137 New Zealand (a) 58.2 3.9 1.719.0 44.4 2,436 4,155 107 Nicaragua n.a. 5.3 171.6 3.2 240 412 8 Nigeria 43.5 132.8 702.0 0.5 1,633 2,335 2 Norway 189.4 4.5 3,325.0 73.3 3,842 7,167 158 Oman (b) 20.1 2.5 227.6 9.0 465 693 27 Pakistan (a) (b) 60.5 144.9 3,655.0 2.5 1,239 4,894 3 Palestinian Territory 3.0 3.2 298.5 9.3 320 619 19 Paraguay 5.4 5.5 273.2 5.0 1,667 1,940 35 Peru 56,901 26.7 1.766.1 6.6 2,306 4,072 15 Phili~~ines (a) 77.1 79.9 3,310.9 4.1 15,201 18,512 23 Portugal 121.3 10.0 4,361.0 43.5 8,529 12,890 128 Qatar 16.5 0.6 176.5 28.9 267 443 73 Russia (b) 346.5 144.1 35,500.0 24.6 17,668 53,168 37 Saudi Arabia 186.5 22.1 1.719.4 7.8 5,008 6,727 30 Serbia and Montenegro 15.6 10.7 2,017.1 18.9 2,750 4.768 45 Singapore (a) 87.0 4.2 1,927.2 46.3 3,313 5,240 126 Slovak Republic 23.7 5.4 1,118.5 20.7 2,923 4,042 75 South Africa (a) 104.2 43.6 4,002.2 9.2 13,814 17,816 41 Spain (d) 649.8 41.2 18.705.6 45.4 33.475 52,181 127 Swaziland (a) 1.2 1.1 35.1 3.2 63 98 9 Sweden 229.8 8.9 6,579.0 73.7 7,949 14,528 163 Switzerland 268.0 7.2 5,335.0 73.8 5.734 11,069 153 Syria 21.9 17.0 2,099.3 12.3 400 2,499 15 Taiwan n.a. n.a. 9,174.8 n.a. 23,905 33,080 n.a. Tajikistan (b) 1.2 6.3 237.6 3.8 13 251 4 Thailand 126.4 61.6 6,499.8 10.5 16,117 22,617 37 Trinidad and Tobago (a) 9.4 1.3 209.3 15.9 362 571 43 Turkey 182.8 69.6 18,914.9 27.2 23,374 42,289 61 Turkmenistan (b) 7.7 5.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ukraine 41.4 48.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. United Arab Emirates n.a. 3.0 672.3 22.0 2,428 3,100 102 United Kingdom (a) 1,552.4 58.9 29,411.4 50.0 49,921 79,332 135 United States 10,416.8 288.4 159.735.2 55.4 140.767 300,502 104 Uzbekistan 9.7 25.4 1,670.0 6.6 187 1,857 7 Yemen 10.4 18.6 542.2 2.9 411 953 5 Source: TeleGeography research, ITU, and World Bank © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 266 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 REFERENCE International Telephone Traffic (L-Z) Outgoing Minutes (millions) Incoming Minutes (millions) Traffic Balance 2001 2002 0Lo Chi!nge 2001 2002 0LQ Chi!nge 2001 2002 C!!l!!ltrie:~ 394.6 414.0 4.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Luxembourg 156.5 152.7 -2.4% 111.9 114.0 1.9% (44.6) (38.7) Macau 66.3 64.7 -2.4% 197.2 192.5 -2.4% 131.0 127.8 Macedonia 845.0 982.0 16.2% 810.0 1,050.0 29.6% (35.0) 68.0 Malaysia (a) 45.6 43.8 -4.0% 65.5 65.6 0.1% 19.9 21 .8 Malta 35.6 37.1 4.2% 56.2 64.0 13.9% 20.6 26.9 Mauritius 2,037.9 1,996.9 -2.0% 5,347.5 5,836.9 9.2% 3,309.6 3,840.0 Mexico 52.3 65.8 25.9% 161 .8 191.4 18.2% 109.6 125.6 Moldova 64.8 60.6 -6.5% 46.2 52.1 12.9% (18.7) (8.5) Namibia 3 300.0 3 525.0 6.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Netherlands 965.0 984.0 2.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a New Zealand (a) 50.0 44.0 -12.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. ~icaragua 60.7 86.9 43.1% 238.0 n.a. n.a. 177.3 n.a. Nigeria 796.0 871 .4 9.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Norway 159.3 165.8 4.1% 108.0 n.a. n.a. (51 .3) n.a. Oman (b) 110.0 128.3 16.7% 1,165.1 1,530.4 31.4% 1,055.2 1.402.1 Pakistan (a) (b) 45.3 40.9 -9.5% 47.9 n.a. n.a. 2.6 n.a. Palestinian Territory 35.3 28.4 -19.5% 75.8 71.4 -5.8% 40.6 43.0 Paraguay 112.7 141.9 25.9% 792.7 1,090.7 37.6% 680.0 948.8 Peru 449.0 461.0 2.7% 3,597.0 3,939.2 9.5% 3,148.0 3.478.2 Phili~~ines (a) 942.0 970.0 3.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Portugal 171.6 233.5 36.1% 113.5 134.6 18.7% (58.2) (98.9) Qatar 1,081.6 1,219.2 12.7% 869.3 1,005.4 15.7% (212.3) (213.8) Russia (b) 1,516.6 1,916.3 26.4% 705.5 815.2 15.6% (811.2) (1,101.1) Saudi Arabia 275.5 284.2 3.1% 582.2 587.1 0.8% 306.7 302.9 Serbia and Montenegro 1,870.7 1,965.0 5.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Singapore (a) 176.3 194.0 10.1% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Slovak Republic 510.7 567.2 11 .1% 736.0 811.8 10.3% 225.3 244.6 South Africa (a) 4,275.0 4.740.0 10.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Spain (d) 26.3 23.3 -11 .4% n.a. 18.3 n.a. n.a. (5.0) Swaziland (a) 1,710.0 1.755.0 2.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Sweden 3,230.0 3.495.0 8.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Switzerland 150.0 179.8 19.9% 325.8 n.a. n.a. 175.8 n.a. Syria 1,522.2 2,154.0 41 .5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Taiwan 8.6 10.0 16.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Tajikistan (b) 377.7 419.1 11 .0% 555.0 305.0 -45.0% 177.4 (114.1) Thailand 80.9 80.2 -0.8% 189.2 276.6 46.2% 108.4 196.4 Trinidad and Tobago (a) 675.0 650.0 -3.7% 1,100.0 1,100.0 n.a. 425.0 450.0 Turkey 19.3 24.1 25.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Turkmenistan (b) 388.0 405.0 4.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Ukraine 1,395.9 1,893.6 35.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. United Arab Emirates 13,941.2 14,545.4 4.3% 7,664.8 9,569.6 24.9% (6,276.4) (4,975.8) United Kingdom (a) 38,821 .9 40,337.2 3.9% 13.400.0 14,249.8 6.3% (25.421 .9) (26,087.4) United States 58.3 60.8 4.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Uzbekistan 43.1 43.9 1.8% n.a. 186.9 n.a. n.a. 143.0 Yemen Notes: Data are in millions of minutes of public switched traffic. VolP call volumes are excluded. a. International traffic for year ending March 31. Fiscal year for New Zealand and Pakistan ends June 30. b. Traffic data exclude some carriers or routes. (See country table for details). c. 2001 and 2002 traffic data not directly comparable. (See country table for details). d. Data include some refile traffic (See country table for details). © PriMetrica,lnc. 2003 © PRIMETRICA INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 267 REFERENCE International Dialing Codes, by Country Afghanistan ...... ...... 93 Albania ...... ... ... 355 Tirana .....• ........ 4 Algeria ................ 213 Alg iers ........... 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 Austra I ian 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 Sara jevo ... .. .. 33 Botswana .. ... .. .. 267 Brazil .................. 55 Brasilia .............. 61 Rio de Janeiro ........ 21 Sao Paulo ........... 11 British Indian Ocean Terr • .. 246 British Virgin Islands 1-284 Brunei ... .. .. .. .. 673 Bandar Seri Begawan 2 Bulgaria ... ...... ..... 359 Sofia ............. 2 Burkina Faso .. ......... 226 Burundi .............. .. 257 Cambodia .......... 855 Cameroon .............. 237 Canada ................ .. 1 Montreal ... .. .. 514/450 Ottawa ... .. .. .. 613 Toronto ... ... ... 416/647 Vancouver .. .. 604/778 Cape Verde ............. 238 Cayman Islands .... 1-345 Central African Republic 236 Bangui ..... ...... 61 Chad .. .......... ...... 235 Chile ....... .. .. ... 56 Santiago ......... .... 2 China, Peoples Republic of 86 Beij ing .. 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 Rica .. ... .. 506 Cote dlvoire ...... .. .. 225 Croatia ............ .... 385 Zagreb .... .. ........ 1 Cuba ....... ............ 53 Havana ............. 7 Cyprus ......... .. ..... 357 Nicosia .... 2 Czech Republic ....... 420 Prague .......... .... 2 Denmark ........ ...... .45 Djibouti ......... .... 253 Dominica ........ .. 1-767 Dominican Republic .. 1-809 East Timor .. .... 670 268 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 Ecuador .. .. .. .. 593 Quito ...... ........ .. 2 Egypt ....... .. .. ... ... 20 Cairo ...... ... .. ... 2 El Salvador .... ........ 50.3 Equatorial Guinea ....... 240 Eritrea ... .. ... 291 Estonia ........ ....... 372 Tallinn .............. 2 Ethiopia ...... ....... 251 Addis Ababa .. .. ...... 1 Falkland Islands ... ..... 500 Faroe Islands ........ .. 298 Fiji ... .. .. .. .. ..... 679 Finland ... ...... ..... 358 Helsinki .......... ... 9 France .... •... .. 33 Paris .. .. • ... ... 1 Marseille .. 491 French Antilles .. .. 596 French Guiana ........... 594 French Polynesia ........ 689 Gabon ....... .. .. .... 241 Gambia ............... 220 Georgia .... .. .... 995 Tbilisi ........ ... .. 32 Germany .. ...... .... .49 Berlin ........ ...... 30 Bonn .. .. ... ... 228 Frankfurt .. ... .. .. 69 Munich •.. ... 89 Ghana ... .... .. 233 Accra .... .. ..•.. ... 21 Gibraltar ............... 350 Greece ... .. .. .. 30 Athens ... .. .. .. ... 1 Greenland .. ... .. .... 299 Grenada ..... .. .. 1-473 Guadeloupe .... ........ 590 Guam ....... .. ...... 1-671 Guatemala ... .. ... .. 502 Guinea .. .. .. ... ... 224 Guinea-Bissau .......... 245 Guyana ..... ........... 592 Georgetown ... ... 2 Haiti ....... .. .... 509 Honduras .... .. 504 Hong Kong .. .. .. 852 Hungary .............. 36 Budapest ............. 1 Iceland .. ... .. .. .... 354 India ... .. ... 91 Mumbai .............. 22 Calcutta ..... ... .. ... 33 New Delhi ...... ... 11 Indonesia ..... .. 62 Jakarta .............. 21 lnmarsat Special .............. 870 East Atlantic ......... 871 Pacific ......... .. ... 872 Indian ............... 873 West Atlantic ... .. 874 International Freephone 800 Iran ....... ...... .. 98 Tehran ........ ..... 21 Iraq .. ...... .. .. 964 Baghdad .. ... ... ... 1 Ireland .. ... 353 Dublin .. ... ... ..... 1 Israel .... .. ..... .. 972 Jerusalem ...•........ 2 Tel Aviv ...... .. ....... 3 Italy .................... 39 Rome ............ ... 06 Milan ......... .. ... 02 Jamaica .. ........ .. .. 1-876 Japan .. ................ 81 Osaka ... ......... ... 6 Tokyo ................ 3 Jordan .. ... .. 962 Amman ... • ... ... 6 Kazakhstan .............. .7 Almaty ............. 3272 Kenya ...... ........ .. 254 Nairobi .... ... ........ 2 Kiribati ..... ... ... 686 Korea, Dem. Rep. of .. ... 850 Pyongyang ..... ... .. 2 Korea, Republic of ..... .. 82 Seoul ............ 2 Kuwait ..... .......... 965 Kyrgyzstan ........... .. 996 Bishkek ... ..... 312 Laos ................... 856 Latvia .............. ... 371 Lebanon ..... ... ... 961 Beirut ...... ... ... 1 Lesotho .... ..... .. 266 Liberia ........... .. .. 231 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Libya .. .. ... .. .. ... 218 Tripoli ... ........... 21 Liechtenstein ....•...... 423 Lithuania .. .. .. .... 370 Vilnius ..... .. .... 2 Luxembourg .. ..• ... 352 Macau ........ •• .. 853 Macedonia ....•.. .. 389 Skopje .... .. ....... 91 Madagascar .. ..• ... 261 Malawi ........... .. 265 Malaysia ...... ...... 60 Kuala Lumpur ... .. .. .. 3 Maldives .. .. ..... .. .. 960 Mali ....... ......... 223 Malta ...... ..... ... 356 Marshall Islands .... .. .. 692 Martinique ........ ..... 596 Mauritania .. .. ... .. ... 222 Mauritius .. .. .. .. 230 Mayotte ..... ... ..... 269 Mexico .. .............. 52 Guadalajara .... ..... 33 Mexico City .. .. ... .. 55 Monterrey ........... 81 Micronesia ......... .. 691 Moldova ....... .... 373 Chisinau ... .... ... 41 Monaco ... ... ....... 377 Mongolia ............. 976 Ulaanbaatar ...... .. ... 1 Montserrat ...... .. 1-664 Morocco ... .... 212 Casablanca ......... 2 Rabat .... ..... .... .7 Mozambique • ... ... 258 Maputo ..... .. .. ... 1 Myanmar ................ 95 Namibia .... .... .. 264 Windhoek ... ... .. 61 Nauru ............... .. 674 Nepal .... .. .... ... 977 Kathmandu ... 1 Netherlands .. ... .. ... 31 Amsterdam ....... ... 20 Netherlands Antilles ..... 599 New Caledonia .. 687 New Zealand .......... 64 Auckland ........... .. 9 Wellington ....... 4 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 Nicaragua ... ....• .. 505 Managua ........ .. 2 Niger ........... •.. .. 227 Nigeria ... ...... .. 234 Lagos .... •. .. .. .... .. 1 Niue .. ... ......... 683 Northern Marianas .... 1-670 Saipan ..... .. 322 Norway ... .. .. 47 Oslo .. .. ... .. ... 22/23 Oman .. ....... .. ..... 968 Pakistan .. .. • 92 Islamabad ...... .. ... 51 Palestinian Territory .. 970 Palau .......... ....... 680 Panama ... ...... ... .. 507 Papua New Guinea .. .. .. 675 Paraguay ... .. ..... .. 595 Asuncion ..... .... 21 Peru ... .. ....... 51 Lima ................ 14 Philippines ........... .. 63 Manila •.... .. 2 Poland ... ... .• ... 48 Warsaw .... ..... 22 Portugal ....... ....... 351 Lisbon .. .. ... ..... .. 21 Puerto Rico .... ... 1-787 Qatar ..... ...... .. .... 974 Reunion Island ....... .. 262 Romania .............. .40 Bucharest ......... 1 Russia ..... .. .. 7 Moscow ... ... .... 095 St. Petersburg .. .. .. 812 Rwanda ... ... ... 250 St. Helena ........... 290 St Kitts & Nevis ... 1-869 St. Lucia .. ... .. ... 1-758 St. Pierre & Miquelon .... 508 St. Vincent & the Grenadines ......... 1-784 San Marino ... .. ... 378 Sao Tome and Principe .. 239 Saudi Arabia ............ 966 Riyadh ................ 1 Senegal ................ 221 Serbia & Montenegro .... 381 Belgrade ..... .... .. 11 Seychelles ... ..... ... 248 REFERENCE Sierra Leone .... .. ... 232 ., Tuvalu ... • ... 688 Singapore ... ...... .. 65 Uganda .. .. ........ 256 Slovak Republic ......... 421 Kampala ...... .. 41 Bratislava ......... 2 Ukraine ..... ... .. .. 380 Slovenia ... ... ..... 386 Kiev ............... 44 Ljubljana .... ..... 1 United Arab Emirates ... 971 Solomon Islands ......... 677 Abu Dhabi ....... .. 2 Somalia ....... ..... 252 Dubai .. .. ...... ... .4 South Africa .. ... .... 27 United Kingdom .. .. .44 Cape Town ........ 21 Cardiff ... ..... 2920 Johannesburg ... ... 11 Glasgow ...... ..... 141 Pretoria .. .. .. .. 12 London .... ..... 207/208 Spain ............ ..... 34 Manchester .. .. .. .. 161 Madrid .............. 91 United States ........ .. 1 Barcelona .....•...... 93 Chicago .... 312/773/872 Sri Lanka .. ... .. .... 94 Houston .. .713/281/832 Colombo .. ..... 1 Los Angeles ...... 213/323 Sudan ...... ...... .... 249 Miami ...... .. 305nB6 Khartoum .....•. .. ... 11 New York .. .. 212/646/917 Suriname .. ... 597 Washington ... .. 202 Swaziland .............. 268 U.S. Virgin Islands ...... 1-340 Sweden ............ .... 46 Uruguay ................ 598 Stockholm .. • ..... 8 Montevideo .. •....... 2 Switzerland ... ........ 41 Uzbekistan .. .. .. ... .. 998 Bern .. ... ....... 31 Tashkent .. .. ... .. .71 Geneva ............ 22 Vanuatu .. ... 678 Zurich ... .. .. 1 Vatican City .... ... .. 379 Syria ... .. .. ... 963 Venezuela .. ...... ... 58 Damascus .. ... ...... 11 Caracas ........ 212 Tahiti .. ...... ... .. 689 Vietnam .... .... ... ... 84 Taiwan ...... ..... .... 886 Wallis & Futuna ......... 681 Taipei .....• ....... 2 Western Samoa ......... 685 Tajikistan ... .. .... 992 Yemen ... ..... 967 Dushanbe •. .. .. 31 Sanaa .. .. •. .... 1 Tanzania .... .. ..... 255 Zambia .. ... ... 260 DarEs Salaam .. 22 Lusaka ... .. .. ... 1 Thailand .... ............ 66 Zanzibar (Tanzania I .... 255 Bangkok .............. 2 Zimbabwe ............. 263 Togo ... ...... .. .. 228 Harare ......•.... .... 4 Tokelau .. .. ... 690 Tonga ... ......... 676 Trinidad & Tobago ...... 1-868 Tunisia .... .... ... .. 216 Tunis .. ... ..... .. .71 Turkey ..... .... ... .. ... 90 Ankara ... ....... 312 Istanbul ...... .. 212, 216 Turkmenistan .... ...... 993 Ashkhabad ... .... 12 Turks & Caicos ....... 1-649 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 269 REFERENCE World Dialing Codes RUSSIA 7 NORTHEIIN MAR!.\NA IS. IUS) 11lt GIIAMWSI ,..., MARSHAll ISLAND$ liZ I FroE!tATEO STATES OF MICRONESIA HI IIAURU &l4 SOlOMON ISlANDS m VANUATU m NE\V CALIDONIA lfll ! --4 NORFOlK ISLANDS IAUS.l m @ PriMetrica, Inc 2003 270 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2004 KIRIBATI .. RlENCH POlYNESIA liS .¥ .. ; CANADA 1 UN I TED STATES 1 MEXICO 52 FERU 51 BRAZIL 55 BOLIVIA 591 PARAGUAY 595 URUGUAY 598 ARGENTINA 54 Fl\lKli\NO IS (UKI !ill © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 GREENLAND 299 ICELAND 54 MOROCCO 212 ALGERIA 213 W. Sa-hara M\URITANIA CAPE\I£RDE 222 MALl Dl SENEGAL 221 223 NIGER 227 GUIN=~~ BURKINA FASO GUINEA 221 226 " NIGERIA LIBYA 218 CHAD 235 EGYPT 20 SUDAN 249 GEORGIA RUSSIA 7 KAZAKHSTAN 7 r~ 9S5 UZBEKISTAN KYRGYZSTAN 9!16 TAJIKISTAN 9!11 AR"i~~IA) Az£!iBA[JAN 99t 1M TURKMENISTAN 993 IRAQ IRAN AFGHANISTAN 98 93 KUWAI BAH:!IN QATAR PAKISTAN 92 NEPAL BHUTAN 977 975 ERITR Z91 973 !14 SAUDI II.A.E. ARABIA 11 966 OJIBD 25t YEMEN 111 OMAN 961 INDIA 91 BANGlADESH .... $l£RitAl£0N£ZI2 C0TEOIVOIRE cj~ n. 225 g z CENTRAL AFRICAN H~AzaZI CAM~R7ooN RE~UC ETHIOPIA 251 SRI TANKA 94 LIBERIA :D1 SA0%1:,:•1:0RIA~3,UINEAREP OF UG~A & Pfi!NCIPEZII GABON CONGO RWAND KENYA ASCENSION !UK! w ST. HElENA (UK) ztt 241 242: Z50 OEM REP OF BURUNDI co:;;o 257 TANZANI 255 ANGOLA 244 MA~WI ZAMBIA 255 SEYCHELLES 2a COMOROS lilt 260 MOZAMBIWJE NAMIBIA ZIM~BWE MAOAGAstAA MA~IUS 264 BOT~ANA 261 ~EU~N !FR.) SOUTH SW~lAND AFRICA L£SOT.HO 27 211 MAl. DIVES 110 BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRIT0111 • MONGOLIA 976 CHINA 86 REFERENCE • © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 271 REFERENCE International Dialing Codes, by Number Canada Guam Northern Marianas United States Caribbean 20 Egypt 212 Morocco 213 Algeria 216 Tunisia 218 Libya 220 Gambia 221 Senegal 222 Mauritania 223 Mali 224 Guinea 225 Cote dlvoire 226 Burkina Faso 227 Niger 228 Togo 229 Benin 230 Mauritius 231 Liberia 232 Sierra Leone 233 Ghana 234 Nigeria 235 Chad 236 Central African Republic 237 Cameroon 238 Cape Verde 239 Sao Tome & Principe 240 Equatorial Guinea 241 Gabon 242 Congo, Republic of 243 Congo, Dem. Rep. of 244 Angola 245 Guinea-Bissau 246 British Indian Ocean Terr. 247 Ascension Island 248 Seychelles 249 Sudan 250 Rwanda 251 Ethiopia 252 Somalia 253 Djibouti 254 Kenya 255 Tanzania 256 Uganda 257 Burundi 258 Mozambique 260 Zambia 261 Madagascar 262 Reunion Island 263 Zimbabwe 264 Namibia 265 Malawi 266 Lesotho 267 Botswana 268 Swaziland 269 Comoros & Mayotte 27 South Africa 290 St. Helena 291 Eritrea 297 Aruba 298 Faroe Islands 299 Greenland 30 Greece 31 Netherlands 32 Belgium 33 France 34 Spain 350 Gibraltar 351 Portugal 352 Luxembourg 353 Ireland 354 Iceland 355 Albania 356 Malta 357 Cyprus 358 Finland 359 Bulgaria 36 Hungary 370 Lithuania 371 Latvia 372 Estonia 373 Moldova 374 Armenia 375 Belarus 376 Andorra 377 Monaco 378 San Marino 379 Vatican City 380 Ukraine 381 Serbia & Montenegro 385 Croatia 386 Slovenia 387 Bosnia-Herzegovina 389 Macedonia 39 Italy 40 Romania 41 Switzerland 420 Czech Republic 421 Slovak Republic 423 Liechtenstein 43 Austria 44 United Kingdom 45 Denmark 4Q Sweden 47 Norway 272 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 48 Poland 688 Tuvalu 49 Germany 689 French Polynesia 500 Falkland Islands 690 Tokelau 501 Belize 691 Micronesia 502 Guatemala 692 Marshall Islands 503 El Salvador 7 Kazakhstan 504 Honduras Russia 505 Nicaragua BOO International Freephone 506 Costa Rica 81 Japan 507 Panama 82 Korea, Republic of 508 St. Pierre & Miquelon 84 Vietnam 509 Haiti 850 Korea, Dem. Rep. of 51 Peru 852 Hong Kong 52 Mexico 853 Macau 53 Cuba 855 Cambodia 54 Argentina 856 Laos 55 Brazil 86 China 56 Chile 870 lnmarsat Special 57 Colombia 871 lnmarsat East Atlantic 58 Venezuela 872 lnmarsat Pacific 590 Guadeloupe 873 lnmarsat Indian 591 Bolivia 874 lnmarsat West Atlantic 592 Guyana 880 Bangladesh 593 Ecuador 886 Taiwan 594 French Guiana 90 Turkey 595 Paraguay 91 India 596 Martinique 92 Pakistan 597 Suriname 93 Afghanistan 598 Uruguay 94 Sri Lanka 599 Netherlands Antilles 95 Myanmar 60 Malaysia 960 Maldives 61 Australia 961 Lebanon 62 Indonesia 962 Jordan 63 Philippines 963 Syria 64 New Zealand 964 Iraq 65 Singapore 965 Kuwait 66 Thailand 966 Saudi Arabia 670 East Timor 967 Yemen 672 Australian Territories 968 Oman 673 Brunei 970 Palestinian Territory 674 Nauru 971 United Arab Emirates 675 Papua New Guinea 972 Israel 676 Tonga 973 Bahrain 677 Solomon Islands 974 Qatar 678 Vanuatu 975 Bhutan 679 Rji Islands 976 Mongolia 680 Palau 977 Nepal 681 Wallis & Futuna 98 Iran 682 Cook Islands 992 Tajikistan 683 Niue 993 Turkmenistan 684 American Samoa 994 Azerbaijan 685 Western Samoa 995 Georgia 686 Kiribati 996 Kyrgyzstan 687 New Caledonia 998 Uzbekistan © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 REFERENCE North American Area Codes, by Number 201 New Jersey 330 Ohio 520 Arizona 713 Texas 863 Florida 202 Oist. of Columbi? 334 Alabama 530 California 714 California 864 South Carolina 203 Connecticut 336 North Carolina 540 Virginia 715 Wisconsin 865 Tennessee 204 Manitoba 337 Louisiana 541 Oregon 716 New York 867 Northwest 205 Alabama 339 Massachusetts 551 New Jersey 717 Pennsylvania Territories/Yukon 206 Washington 340 U.S. Virgin Is. 559 California 718 New York 868 Trinidad & Tobago 207 Maine 345 Cayman Islands 561 Florida 719 Colorado 869 St. Kitts & Nevis 208 Idaho 347 New York 562 California 720 Colorado 870 Arkansas 209 California 351 Massachusetts 563 Iowa 724 Pennsylvania 876 Jamaica 210 Texas 352 Florida 567 Ohio 727 Florida 877 Toll-free serv. 212 New York 360 Washington 570 Pennsylvania 731 Tennessee 878 Pennsylvania 213 California 361 Texas 571 Virginia 732 New Jersey 880 Toll-free serv. 214 Texas 386 Florida 573 Missouri 734 Michigan 881 Toll-free serv. 215 Pennsylvania 401 Rhode Island 574 Indiana 740 Ohio 882 Toll-free serv. 216 Ohio 402 Nebraska 580 Oklahoma 754 Florida 888 Toll-free serv. 217 Illinois 403 Alberta 585 New York 757 Virginia 900 Info. Servs. 218 Minnesota 404 Georgia 586 Michigan 758 St. Lucia 901 Tennessee 219 Indiana 405 Oklahoma 601 Mississippi 760 California 902 Nova Scotia & 224 Illinois 406 Montana 602 Arizona 763 Minnesota Prince Edward Is. 225 Louisiana 407 Florida 603 New Hampshire 765 Indiana 903 Texas 228 Mississippi 408 California 604 British Columbia 767 Dominica 904 Florida 229 Georgia 409 Texas 605 South Dakota 770 Georgia 905 Ontario 231 Michigan 410 Maryland 606 Kentucky 772 Florida 906 Michigan 234 Ohio 411 Directory Assist. 607 New York 773 Illinois 907 Alaska 239 Florida 412 Pennsylvania 608 Wisconsin 774 Massachusetts 908 New Jersey 240 Maryland 413 Massachusetts 609 New Jersey 775 Nevada 909 California 242 Bahamas 414 Wisconsin 610 Pennsylvania 778 British Colombia 910 North Carolina 246 Barbados 415 California 611 Repair Service 780 Alberta 911 Emergency Servs. 248 Michigan 416 Ontario 612 Minnesota 781 Massachusetts 912 Georgia 250 British Columbia 417 Missouri 613 Ontario 784 St. Vincent & 913 Kansas 251 Alabama 418 Quebec 614 Ohio Grenadines 914 New York 252 North Carolina 419 Ohio 615 Tennessee 785 Kansas 915 Texas 253 Washington 423 Tennessee 616 Michigan 786 Florida 916 California 254 Texas 425 Washington 617 Massachusetts 787 Puerto Rico 917 New York 256 Alabama 430 Texas 618 Illinois BOO Toll-free serv. 918 Oklahoma 260 Indiana 432 Texas 619 California 801 Utah 919 North Carolina 262 Wisconsin 434 Virginia 620 Kansas 802 Vermont 920 Wisconsin 264 Anguilla 435 Utah 623 Arizona 803 South Carolina 925 California 267 Pennsylvania 440 Ohio 626 California 804 Virginia 928 Arizona 268 Antigua 441 Bermuda 630 Illinois 805 California 931 Tennessee 269 Michigan 443 Maryland 631 New York 806 Texas 936 Texas 270 Kentucky 450 Quebec 636 Missouri 807 Ontario 937 Ohio 276 Virginia 469 Texas 641 Iowa 808 Hawaii 939 Puerto Rico 281 Texas 473 Grenada 646 New York 809 Dominican Rep. 940 Texas 284 British Virgin Is. 478 Georgia 647 Ontario 810 Michigan 941 Florida 289 Ontario 479 Arkansas 649 Turks & Caicos Is. 812 Indiana 947 Michigan 301 Maryland 480 Arizona 650 California 813 Florida 949 California 302 Delaware 484 Pennsylvania 651 Minnesota 814 Pennsylvania 952 Minnesota 303 Colorado 500 Pers. Comm. Serv. 660 Missouri 815 Illinois 954 Florida 304 West Virginia (PCS) 661 California 816 Missouri 956 Texas 305 Florida 501 Arkansas 662 Mississippi 817 Texas 970 Colorado 306 Saskatchewan 502 Kentucky 664 Montserrat 818 California 971 Oregon 307 Wyoming 503 Oregon 670 Northern Marianas 819 Quebec 972 Texas JOB Nebraska 504 Louisiana 671 Guam 828 North Carolina 973 New Jersey 309 Illinois 505 New Mexico 679 Michigan 830 Texas 978 Massachusetts 310 California 506 Nebraska 682 Texas 831 California 979 Texas 312 Illinois 507 Minnesota 701 North Dakota 832 Texas 980 North Carolina 313 Michigan 508 Massachusetts 702 Nevada 843 South Carolina 985 Louisiana 314 Missouri 509 Washington 703 Virginia 845 New York 989 Michigan 315 New York 510 California 704 North Carolina 847 Illinois 316 Kansas 512 Texas 705 Ontario 848 New Jersey 317 Indiana 513 .Ohio 706 Georgia 850 Florida 318 Louisiana 514 Quebec 707 California 856 New Jersey 319 Iowa 515 Iowa 708 Illinois 857 Massachusetts 320 Minnesota 516 New York 709 Newfoundland 858 California 321 Florida 517 Michigan 710 U.S. Government 859 Kentucky 323 California 518 New York Emergency 860 Connecticut 325 Texas 519 Ontario 712 Iowa 862 New Jersey © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 273 REFERENCE North American Area Codes, by Jurisdiction Alabama Birmingham and west-central Alabama ... .... 205 Mobile and southwestern Alabama ..... 251 Huntsville and northern Alabama ..... 256 Montgomery and southern Alabama .. 334 Alaska ............................... 907 Alberta Calgary and southern Alberta .... ... .403 Edmonton and northern Alberta ... .780 Anguilla ............ .... ......... .. 264 Antigua .. .. .. .. ....... .. .. ..... ... 268 Arizona Eastern Phoenix area ........ ....... 480 Tucson and southeastern Arizona ..... 520 Central Phoenix .... .. .. .. .. 602 Western Phoenix ........ ... ... 623 Northern and southwestern Arizona .. 928 Arkansas Fort Smith .. ........ .. ..•..... 479 Little Rock, Fayetteville and northwestern Arkansas ........... 501 Jonesboro and southern Arkansas .. 870 Bahamas ........ ............ ... 242 Barbados ... .... .. .. .. .... .. ... 246 Bermuda ..................... .. • .... 441 British Columbia British Columbia except Vancouver area ......... ..... .... 250 Vancouver area .. ..... .. .. 604n7B British Virgin Islands ............. ... .. 284 California Stockton, Fresno, Modesto, and centra l Cal ifornia ........ ... .... 209 Los Angeles .. ................... 213 Malibu, Beverly Hills, and west Los Angeles suburbs ..... ... ..... 310 Florence ........... .. ......... 323 San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino .408 San Francisco ....... .. .......... .415 Oakland and Berkeley areas ........ 510 Chico, Redding, and northeastern California ...... .. .. .. 530 Fresno and central California ..... .. 559 Long Beach ........ .. ............ .. 562 San Diego and southwestern Californ ia ......... 619 Pasadena ........................ !26 San Mateo, Palo Alto and south San Francisco suburbs ....... ... 650 Bakersfield and south central California .. .. ... ... 661 Fort Bragg, Eureka, Ukiah, and northern California .... ........ .. .707 Northern Orange County .. .. ... 714 Ontario and San Bernadino .... ... .. 909 Barstow, Encito, Palm Springs, and southeastern California ..... .. .760 Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, and central western California ..... ... 805 Burbank and Glendale areas .... .. 818 Monterey, Santa Cruz, and · west-central California .......... .. 831 Northern San Diego and Del Mar ..... 858 Sacramento ....................... 916 Concord, Livermore, Walnut Creek · ... 925 Anaheim, Irvine, and ·· southern Orange County ............ 949 Cayman Islands ...... .... ... .. .. ... 345 274 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 Colorado Denver area ....... .. .... 303n2o Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and southeastern Colorado .. .... ... .719 Aspen, Durango, and northwestern Colorado .. ....... 970 Connecticut Bridgeport, New Haven, and southwestern Connecticut .......... 203 Hartford, Bristol, and northeastern Connecticut .. ........ 860 Delaware ..... ...................... 302 District of Columbia Washington .. .... ..... 202 Dominica .. .................. .767 Dominican Republic ... .. .. 809 Florida Miami, Key West, and southeastern Florida .. • ... 305n86 Orlando and central eastern Florida ... .... 321/407 Gainesville and central Florida ....... 352 Daytona Beach, area west of Jacksonville ..... .. .. .. ...... 386 West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and east central Florida .. .... 561n72 Tampa Bay .......... .. ............ 727 St. Petersburg ........ .. ... 813 Pensacola, Tallahassee, and northwestern Florida .. ........ 850 Lakeland, Sebring, and south-central Florida ... .. .. ... 863 Jacksonville, Daytona, and northeastern Florida ........... ... 904 Bradenton, Sarasota, and southwestern Florida .......... 239/941 Fort Lauderdale ........ .... 754/954 Georgia Albany, Valdosta, and south-centra I Georgia ........... .. 229 Atlanta ............ ........ 404/67Smo 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 .. .... .. ... ..... .. 312n73 Southern Chicago suburbs .. .708 Alton, Mount Vernon, and southern Illinois ....... .... 618 Central Chicago suburbs ...... ...... 630 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 ...... .. 240/301 Baltimore, Annapolis, and eastern Maryland .............. 410/443 Massachusetts Waltham, Lexington, and Boston suburbs ........ .. .. .. 339n81 Lowell, Salem, and northern Massachusetts ... ... ... 351/978 Pittsfield, Springfield, and western Massachusetts ... .... ... 413 Framingham, Cape Cod, and southern Massachusetts ........ 50Sn74 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 Fl int, Flushing, and southeastern Michigan .... .. .. 586/810 Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and southwestern Michigan ......... 269/616 Ann Arbor and Wayne .. ... .... .734 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Marquette and northern Michigan 906 Bay City and centr,al Michigan ... 989 Minnesota Duluth and northern Minnesota ..... 218 St. Cloud and central Minnesota .. .... 320 Rochester and southern Minnesota .. 507 Minneapolis ... .. ............... 612 St. Paul ........... ..... ... .. .... 651 Fridley and Blaine .... ............. 763 Bloomington and Minnetonka ........ 952 Mississippi Biloxi and southern Mississippi ....... 228 Jackson and central Mississippi .. .. 601 Greenville and northern Mississippi .. 662 Missouri St. Louis ... .... .. .. .... 314 Joplin, Springfield, and southwestern Missouri .. .. .. .. 417 Jefferson City, Columbia, and eastern Missouri .. ... ........ 573 Franklin and Jefferson counties ... 636 Marshall and northern Missouri ..... 660 Kansas City .. .. ........ .. .... 816 Montana ...... .. .. .. ................ 406 Montserrat ..... ......... .. 664 Nebraska North Platte and western Nebraska .. 308 Omaha, Lincoln, and eastern Nebraska .... .. .. .. 402 Nevada Las Vegas and southern Nevada ...... 702 Northern Nevada ............ .... 775 New Brunswick ............... .. ... 506 New Hampshire ... .. .. 603 New Jersey Hackensack, Jersey City, and northeastern New Jersey ... 201/551 Atlantic City, Trenton, and southeastern New Jersey ... .. 609 Middlesex and Ocean counties .732/848 Camden, Millville, and southwestern New Jersey ..... 856 Elizabeth, Warren, and northwestern New Jersey .. ... 908 Newark and Morristown .... .. 862/973 New Mexico ...... ........... .. 505 New York Manhattan ... ...... ... 212/646/917 Syracuse and northwestern New York .. ... ..... 315 Nassau County and western Long Island ... .. ................ .. 516 Northeastern New York ..... .... .. 518 Western New York ... .. ....... 585 Binghamton and south central New York ... ...... 607 Lindenhurst, Islip, and eastern Long Island .. ............... ... 631 Buffalo and western New York ... .716 Brooklyn, State Island, Bronx, and Queens ......... 347m8/917 Albany, Poughkeepsie, and southeastern New York .. ...... 845 Westchester, White Plains, and southeastern New York ............ 914 Newfoundland .. ..... .. .. ... .. ... 709 North Carolina Northeastern North Carolina .. .... 252 © PRIMETRICA, INC 2003 Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and northwestern North Carolina ..... 336 Charlotte and south central North Carolina ....... ...... 704/980 Asheville and western North Carolina .. .... ... 828 Fayetteville and southeastern North Carolina ..... .. ... .. ........ 910 Raleigh and northeastern North Carolina .... .... .. ...... 919 North Dakota .. .... .... .... .. .701 Northern Marianas ..... .............. 670 Northwest Territories/Yukon .. .... .. .... 867 Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island ... 902 Ohio Cleveland .. .. .... ... 216 Youngstown, Akron, Canton, and northeastern Ohio .. .. .. 234/330 Toledo and northwestern Ohio .. 419/567 Northeastern Ohio excluding Cleveland ..... ........ ...... .440 Cincinnati and southwestern Ohio .. 513 Columbus ... ... .. .... ....... 614 Southeastern Ohio ................ .740 Southwestern Ohio excluding Cincinnati .. .. .... ........ 937 Oklahoma Oklahoma City and central Oklahoma .. .... ..... 405 Southwestern Oklahoma .... ... ... 580 Tulsa and northeastern Oklahoma .. .. 918 Ontario Toronto .. ..................... 416/647 London and southwestern Ontario ... 519 Ottawa and southeastern Ontario .... 613 North Bay and northeastern Ontario .. .705 Thunder Bay and western Ontario 807 Hamilton and southeastern Ontario ..... .. ... 289/905 Oregon Portland, Salem, and northwestern Oregon .. ...... 503/971 Oregon except Portland areas .. ..... 541 Pennsylvania Philadelphia .. .... .. ... .. .. 215/267 Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania ..... .... .. 412/724/878 Allentown, Reading, and southeastern Pennsylvania .484/610 Scranton and northeastern Pennsylvania .. ..... 570 Harrisburg and south central Pennsylvania .... .. .717 Erie and northwestern Pennsylvania ......... 814 Puerto Rico .. .. ... .. ..... 787/939 Quebec Quebec City and eastern Quebec .418 Southern Quebec excluding Montreal ....... ..... .. 450 Montreal .......................... 514 Western Quebec ...... .. • 819 Rhode Island .... ..... ... ... .. .. 401 St. Kitts & Nevis ..... .. .. .. 869 St. Lucia .... ... .. .. .. .. .. 758 St. Vincent & Grenadines ...... ... .. .. .784 Saskatchewan ...... .... .. ... 306 South Carolina REFERENCE Columbia and central Sou~h Carolina ...... ... .. .. .. 803 Charleston and eastern South Carolina ....... ......... .. 843 Greenville and western Sou~h 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 ..... .. .... .. 281m3/832 Abiline ...............•............ 325 Corpus Christi and southeastern Texas ... .... 361 Galveston and southeastern Texas .... 409 Midland and southwestern Texas .. 432 Austin and San Marcos .. ....... 512 Fort Worth and Arlington ........ 682/817 Amarillo and northern Texas .. ... 806 Uvalde and southwest Texas .. .. .. 830 Tyler and northeastern Texas ..... 903/430 El Paso, and western Texas ... .... 915 Conroe and southeastern Texas .... 936 Denton and northern Texas .......... 940 La redo, 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 ..... .. 571/703 Hampton, Norfolk, and southeastern Virginia .. ... ...... 757 Richmond and central Virginia .. ..... 804 Washington Seattle and suburbs .. .. 206/360/425 Tacoma .......................... 253 Western Washington .... ... .. ... 509 Wisconsin Racine and southeastern Wisconsin 262 Milwaukee and Oak Creek .. ... .. 414 Madison and southwestern Wisconsin ... ................... 608 Eau Claire and northern Wisconsin .715 Southeastern Wisconsin excluding Milwaukee ... •.. .. 920 West Virginia ....... .. ... ... .. 304 Wyoming ............ ....... .. .... 307 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 275 REFERENCE North American Area Codes ._ __ HAWAII 808 © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 BRITISH COLUMBIA 250 276 TELEGEDGRAPHY 2004 780 UTAH 435 ARIZONA 928 SASKATCHEWAN 306 Regina • MONTANA 406 WYOMING 307 NEW MEXICO 505 500 Personal Communication Services 880/881 Toll-free to U.S. from Canada and Caribbean Winnipeg • NORTH DAKOTA 701 SOUTH DAKOTA 605 ·•. NEBRASKA ··. 785 ( 8 620 ----·- ·. 9l3 KANSAS ··•.•. i ( 31.6 ________ ,_ .. ~/ OKLAHOMA 918 806 :4ii5) \.. 580 ··-----· ·. © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 ONTARIO --·,\\, ___ _ 807 705 QUEBEC © PriMetrica, Inc 2003 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 --- REFERENCE BERMUDA PUERTO RICO 787/939 ! TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 277 REFERENCE A Primer on Bits Measuring Bytes Bit by Bit Below are the standard metric prefixes used in the Sl (Systeme International) conventions for scientific measurement. With units of time (e.g., gigabits per second) or things that come in powers of 10, they retain their usual meanings of multiplication by powers of 1,000 = 103. When used with bytes (e.g., gigabytes of data storage) or other things that naturally come in powers of 2, they usually denote multiplication by powers of 1,024 = 210. Base 10 Base2 1 Kilobit/s = 1.0oo1" 103 1,000 1 Kilobyte 1.0241 = 210 = 1,024 1 Megabit/s = 1,0002=106 1,000,000 1 Megabyte 1.0242 = 220 = 1,048,576 1 Gigabit/s = 1,0003 = 109 1,000,000,000 1 Gigabyte 1,0243 = 23o = 1,073,741,824 1 Terabit/s = 1,ooo4 = 1012 1,000,000,000,000 1 Terabyte 1,0244 = 24o = 1,099,511,627,776 1 Petabit/s = 1,0005 = 1015 1,000,000,000,000,000 1 Petabyte 1,0245 = 25o = 1,125,899,906,842,624 1 Exabit/s = 1.ooo6 = 1018 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Exabyte 1.0246 = 260 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 1 Zetta bit/s = 1,ooo7 = 1021 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Zettabyte 1.0241 = 210 = 1,180,591,620,717.411,303.424 1 Yottabit/s = 1.ooo8 = 1o24 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1 Yottabyte 1,0248 = 280 = 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 Measuring Telecommunications Bandwidth-DS-0 to OC-192 Carrier Technology Data Rate (Mbps) Description 64 Kbps Circuits* DS-0 0.064 Base rate in the Digital Signal (DS) level hierarchy 1 T-1 (DS-1) 1.544 Primary level of the American T-carrier multiplexing 24 system; capacity is the same as aDS 1 carrier T-2 (DS-2) 6.312 Four times 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 T-1 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 DC-1/STS-1 51 .840 Basic signaling rate of SO NET hierarchy 672 OC-3/STM-1 155.520 Exactly three times the capacity of OC-1** 2,016 OC-12/STM-4 622.080 12 times the capacity of OC-1 8,064 OC-24 1,244.160 24 times the capacity of OC-1 16,128 OC-48/STM-16 2.488.320 48 times the capacity of OC-1 32,256 OC-192/STM-64 9,953.280 192 times the capacity of OC-1 129,024 Key "T" T-carrier system in U.S., Canada, and Japan with 1.544 Mbps as the primary level (24 voice channels x 64 Kbps per channel(. ·os· Digital Signal that travels on the T·carrier or E-carrier. "E" Used in countries other than U.S., Canada, and Japan. The hierarchy was established by the CEPT (Conference Europeenne des Pastes et Telecommunications) with 2.048 Mbps as the primary level ([30 voice channels+ 2 channels for overhead] x 64 Kbps per channel). ·oc· Optical Carrier interface designed to work with STS-n (Synchronous Transport Signal) signaling rate in a SO NET (Synchronous Optical Network). "STM" Synchronous Transport Module refers to a large carrier (base signal155.52 Mbps) in a SO NET. "STS" Synchronous Transport Signal is the electrical counterpart to the Optical Carrier (OC). Notes: The number of 64 Kbps is presented for comparative purposes only. The actual number of simultaneous conversations possible over a given carrier may vary depending on the encoding scheme used. ** In the "E" and T hierarchies, each higher level is set to be "almost but not exactly a multiple of the bit rate for the previous order (plesiochronous). To eliminate problems associated with plesiochronous multiplexing, SONET, a synchronous hierarchy, was defined in the United States in 19sS. As a result, the OC and STM" carriers are exact bit-rate multiples of their primary levels, OC-1 and STM-1, respectively. Source: TeleGeography research, Alcatel, Newtons Telecommunications Dictionary © PriMetrica, Inc. 2003 278 TELEGEOGRAPHY 2004 © PRIMETRICA, INC. 2003 INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC DATABASE THE ONLY SOURCE FOR ONLINE ACCESS TO SEVEN YEARS OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THOUSANDS OF CROSS-BORDER ROUTES WORLDWIDE 4. Dattt•DIJPI•v(D liJOUtQOir!oM!rtute$(mdllo.ns) o--·~~ Dtriffk&~(tniliofu) 0Tr4ffrtVOILitnll(!TIII!icns} D """""• ""wtll (OOJ O~inv Gra·wtft (~) Ooutooino PemrntofTotal ("") OrrttQtllingp~OfTQt:;tl·(%} All europe .. """" us &.c~n~do~ ~~&Carli)be Oceania Afghanistan Albania ...,oeria Andorra 1997 1901 2000 0\ltoolat Mhtlltes ~golnt ,...n1:1tts 0;uttoln1 Mlnut.s Outoltlno MinlltfiJ: ~UIIons) ;iY:IUions) ~~DioM) ,i,~llllons) BrnN cnua ····calomiila CaStiiRica CUbl DomlnlcanRep~o~bl!c Ecuador EISaNador Grenada Guetem111 228.08 233.08 1H.20 179.17 66.36 82 .72 94 .40 90 .01 38.38 34.48 47,70 52.84 e01i1.4ose 128.2278 2z!.itle 711.0666 141.76 15 453.1573 113.5263 108.8!il28 e3.BZS3 145.64123 GOP(USDmillloN): 9,8112,842.00 P~(l!lllliont) : llll.55 M-l...inH: 19l.S111,757 ~~•• 109,47e,o:n Teled.n11t1 6831 ~•"aiTr.rfklai•IKt ........ ... 1,194.9>0 """" 19.119.10 ··- .to;n4.2tl """"" 27,)14.00 "" !1,213)0 :u.oou7 -13,788.37 32.214.97 52.64 42 .94 ... 2!.103-4 ·14,761.$1 35.$59.11 .. .. 10,6407! 29.~8 19 39,~.!4 61.35 52.11 754 .25 ... 13,010.74 37.!194.94 44,514.11 50.60$.51 NltH(l996):D.uo .. in ~vfi!IIPil.ltnd~Polbk1wccMd t~tr.tlk. Net•~Ct997):o.u ..... rnillionsot....u.tJioutQor>opUblic~ ttieeoiiIITIUI~tr;tlk, The International Traffic Database is the most compre­ hensive source for current and historical cross-border telephone traffic statistics. The database contains seven years of our authoritative research on route­ by-route traffic volumes for 120 countries, from TeleCeography 1997 up to the most recent TeleCeography 2004. All data may be viewed on screen with your Web browser or downloaded into spreadsheet format. • All available route-by-route outgoing and incom­ ing traffic volumes (not just the top 20 printed each year) • Vital data for your models: country totals for traffic, national income, telephone subscribers, and population • Search, display, and export data to spreadsheets • Detailed profiles for more than 120 countries • Context-sensitive help available for all search categories • Over ten critical traffic and indicator variables, including incoming and outgoing min­ utes, growth rate, fixed lines, teledensity, and mobile phones For more information and how to order the International Traffic Database contact your account manager: Europe, Africa, and Asia: +44 (0) 1392 315563 North and South America: +1 760 579 0218 x114 PriMetr1ca Founded in 2002 from the integrated operations of TeleGeography and CIT Publications, PriMetricas plat­ form of authoritative data sets and objective analysis have provided clear guidance to thousands of clients in over 100 countries. The companys communications industry research delivers time-sensitive statistics and insight on hundreds of markets and thousands of service providers. PriMetrica offers individual and enterprise subscriptions to online databases and reports on subjects rang­ ing from wireless carrier competition to global Internet backbone traffic. In addition, the companys team of experienced consultants can supply customized market analysis, strategic advice, and support services to clients anywhere in the world. PriMetrica is headquartered in San Diego, California with U.S. East Coast offices in Washington DC and European offices in London and Exeter, U.K. Sales North & South America PriMetrica, Inc. Headquarters One Carlsbad Research Center 2382 Faraday Ave, Suite 140 Carlsbad, CA 92008 United States Tel.: 1 760 579 0218 Fax: 1 760 579 0273 sa les@primetrica. com Europe, Africa, and Asia CIT Publications Ltd. 3 Colleton Crescent Exeter, Devon. EX2 4DG United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1392 315567 Fax: +44 1392 315556 sales@primetrica.com Research and Consulting San Diego PriMetrica, Inc. Headquarters One Carlsbad Research Center 2382 Faraday Ave, Suite 140 Carlsbad, CA 92008 United States Tel. : 1 760 579 0218 Fax: 1 760 579 0273 consulting@primetrica.com Washington DC, USA TeleGeography Research 1909 K St., NW Suite 380 Washington, DC 20006 United States Tel. : 1 202 741 0020 Fax: 1 202 741 0021 research .dc@primetrica. com London, UK TeleGeography Research 6th Floor Crown House 51 Aldwych London WC2B 4AX United Kingdom Tel.: +44 20 7395 4551 Fax: +44 20 7395 4501 research .london@primetrica .com Exeter; UK CIT Publications Ltd. 3 Colleton Crescent Exeter, Devon. EX2 4DG United Kingdom Tel. : +44 1392 315567 Fax: +44 1392 315556 research .exeter@primetrica. com