Broadband Infrastructure in South Asia and West Asia Presentation.pdf · Broadband Infrastructure...

www.terabitconsulting.com

Broadband Infrastructure in South Asia and West Asia

Markets, Infrastructure, and Policy Options for

Enhancing Cross-Border Connectivity

Michael Ruddy Director of International Research

Terabit Consulting


Part 1: Background and Methodology


Completed ASEAN-9 Study Phase I: Between November of 2012 and August of 2013, Terabit Consulting completed a study of 9 countries in Southeast Asia, as well as adjoining regions:

– Cambodia – Indonesia – Lao PDR – Malaysia – Myanmar – Philippines – Singapore – Thailand – Vietnam – Yunnan Province, China


Completed North & Central Asia Study Phase II: Between June and November 2013, Terabit Consulting completed a study of 7 countries in North and Central Asia

– Azerbaijan – Kazakhstan – Kyrgyz Republic – Russian Fed. – Tajikistan – Turkmenistan – Uzbekistan


Current Study: South Asia and West Asia Between April and October 2014 (with analysis ongoing), Terabit Consulting performed a detailed analysis of broadband infrastructure and markets in 9 strategic markets in South Asia & West Asia:

– Bangladesh – Bhutan – Iran – India – Maldives – Nepal – Sri Lanka – Turkey


Scope (cont’d.) • The data and analysis for each country included:

Telecommunications market overview and analysis of

competitiveness Regulation and government intervention Fixed-line telephony market Mobile telephony market Internet and broadband market Consumer broadband pricing Evaluation of domestic network connectivity International Internet bandwidth International capacity pricing Historical and forecasted total international bandwidth Evaluation of international network connectivity including

terrestrial fiber, undersea fiber, and satellite Evaluation of trans-border network development and

identification of missing links Identification of key highway and rail projects


Sources of Data • Terabit Consulting has completed dozens of

demand studies for submarine and terrestrial fiber networks worldwide – Constant contact with operators, ISPs, and other

stakeholders • Terabit Consulting’s published

reports include: – The Undersea Cable Report

(1,500+ pages) – International Telecommunications

Infrastructure Analysis (1,000+ pages) • Terabit Consulting’s data and

intelligence covers infrastructure, demand, traffic flows, pricing, and market share


Part 2: State of South and West Asia Bandwidth and Broadband Markets


Overview of Broadband Status GDP per

Capita, YE 2012 (PPP, USD)

Int’l. Band-

width per Capita (Kbps)

Int’l. Connect-

ivity

Domestic Connect-

ivity

IP Transit Price

Competitive-ness of

Telecom Market

Fixed and Mobile

Broadband Infra-

structure

Annual 1 Mbps Broadband

Subscription + Installation as % of Nominal GDP

per Capita

Bangladesh $2,200 0.3 Weak Moderate Expensive Somewhat Competitive Limited Very Expensive

Bhutan $7,000 7.6 Weak Limited Expensive Less Competitive Limited Reasonable

India $4,000 1.0 Excellent Moderate Moderate Competitive Limited Reasonable

Islamic Republic of Iran

$14,300 1.5 Excellent Limited Expensive Less Competitive Limited Somewhat

Expensive

Maldives $10,200 24.0 Sufficient Moderate Expensive Less Competitive Limited Reasonable

Nepal $1,600 0.7 Weak Limited Expensive Less Competitive Limited Very Expensive

Pakistan $3,800 1.7 Somewhat Weak Moderate Expensive Somewhat

Competitive Limited Somewhat Expensive

Sri Lanka $8,100 2.2 Sufficient Moderate Expensive Less Competitive Limited Affordable

Turkey $16,900 30.7 Sufficient Moderate Very Reasonable

Less Competitive Limited Extremely

Affordable


International Internet Bandwidth, YE13 Turkey: 2.3 Tbps

India 1.2 Tbps

Pakistan: 300 Gbps

Iran: 113 Gbps

Bangladesh: 50 Gbps

Sri Lanka: 45 Gbps

Nepal: 20 Gbps

Maldives: 8 Gbps

Bhutan: 5.7 Gbps


Int’l. Internet Bandwidth per Capita (Kbps)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 30.7

24.0

7.0

2.2 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.3

• Difference between Turkey and Bangladesh: 100x • Average in Western Europe: 99 Kbps

1 Kbps or Less: Serious Obstacle to Development


International Fiber Connectivity • The Study identified and analyzed 40 trans-border

terrestrial fiber optic links in the region – Across borders within the region and at the edge of the

region (e.g. to China, Mynamar, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eastern Europe)

• Some transborder links form segments of multinational networks – Trans Asia-Europe (TAE) – Europe-Persia Express Gateway (EPEG) – South Asian Sub-regional Economic Cooperation (SASEC)

Information Highway • The analysis also covered 28 submarine cable systems

– Including interregional systems such as the Sea-Me-We and FLAG cables, as well as regional submarine cables


Our Gracious Hosts: Bhutan • Two terrestrial cables to India

– Phuentsholing to Jaigaon, India (2007) – Galephu to Assam, India (2011) – Both fiber paths converge at Siliguri, India

• Druknet/BT 5.3 Gbps with connectivity via LINX and HKIX – Third international POP in Singapore in 2014

• Tashi Infocomm: 370 Mbps • South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC)

Information Highway network will connect Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, and Nepal – Included installation of new fiber link from Thimphu to Phuentsholing

and Gelephu (2014)

Fragile infrastructure reliant upon India, vulnerable to multiple bottlenecks including

Siliguri, Mumbai, and Egyptian submarine cables


Bangladesh: Int’l. Infrastructure • Heavily dependent upon Sea-Me-We-4 cable

– Operated by BSCCL; 200 Gbps is currently 20% used

• Six ITC operators licensed to connect terrestrially to India – BTCL and BSNL networks were interconnected in 2010 – Bharti Airtel cable implemented in July, 2013

• Projects under development include Sea-Me-We-5 and a terrestrial link to MPT Myanmar

Weak international infrastructure reliant upon Sea-Me-We-4 and terrestrial links to India, and vulnerable to

submarine cable disruptions in Egypt.


India: Int’l. Infrastructure • Eleven interregional submarine cables

– FLAG Europe-Asia (FEA) (1997), Sea-Me-We-3 (1999), Sea-Me-We-4 (2005) – SAFE (2002) and Seacom (2009) – i2i (2002) and TGN-TIC (2004) – Falcon (2006), I-Me-We (2010), Europe-India Gateway (2011), and the Gulf Bridge

International /MENA network (2012)

• International gateway share: Tata 39%, Bharti 30%, Reliance 26%, Sify 5% • Bharat Lanka Cable System and India-Maldives • Terrestrial cables:

– To China: Reliance (2009), Bharti Airtel/China Telecom (2010), Tata Communications (2010)

– India-Myanmar (2010) – Multiple links to Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal – India-Pakistan cable between Amritsar and Lahore has been installed, but security

agencies on both sides of the border are refusing its use for non-voice traffic

Although India benefits from excellent international connectivity, it is still extremely vulnerable to submarine cable events in Egypt and the Strait of Malacca.

Only improved, robust pan-regional terrestrial connectivity can provide a viable alternative.


Iran: Int’l. Infrastructure • Terrestrial connectivity to all neighbors

– As of 2012, trans-border capacity was as follows: Armenia 1.4 Gbps, Azerbaijan 1.2 Gbps, Turkey 600 Mbps, Turkmenistan 600 Mbps, Iraq 300 Mbps, and Afghanistan 200 Mbps (Pakistani link reportedly under implementation)

– Telecommunications Infrastructure Company of Iran (TCI) has set the following targets for 2017: Azerbaijan 4.3 Tbps, Iraq 1.2 Tbps, Turkey 1.1 Tbps, Armenia 930 Gbps, Turkmenistan 600 Gbps, Afghanistan 430 Gbps, and Pakistan 400 Gbps.

• Pan-regional terrestrial networks: Trans Asia-Europe (TAE) and Europe-Persia Express Gateway (EPEG)

• Submarine cables include Falcon, Gulf Bridge International (GBI), Pishgaman Oman-Iran (POI), EPEG Iran-Oman, UAE-Iran, and Kuwait-Iran.

Iran’s physicial connectivity within the region is excellent, positioning it as a viable and competitive transit hub for traffic from South Asia, the Middle

East, and Central Asia, as well as Europe-Asia demand. However, activated bandwidth levels must be significantly increased.


Maldives: Int’l. Infrastructure • Two submarine cables connecting to India and Sri

Lanka – Dhiraagu submarine cable (in partnership with SLT) (2006) – WARF Telecom Maldives-India-Sri Lanka

(Wataniya/Ooredoo with Lanka Bell & Reliance) (2007/2008)

Although every country should optimally have more

than two international outlets, Maldives’ existing infrastructure is advanced for a country of its size, and

enables very high per-capita bandwidth


Nepal: Int’l. Infrastructure • Terrestrial interconnections to four Indian networks

– Reliance, BSNL, and Airtel via the Birgunj-Raxaul and Birtatnagar-Jogbani border crossings

– Tata links to the network of UTL via Birgunj-Raxaul and Bhairahwa-Sunauli

• SASEC Information Highway and Nepal-China link under implementation

Nepal’s international infrastructure is currently very weak, leaving it reliant almost exclusively upon India


Pakistan: Int’l. Infrastructure • Incumbent operator PTCL operates three submarine cables and

controls about 60% of international traffic – Sea-Me-We-3 (1999), Sea-Me-We-4 (2005), I-Me-We (2010)

• Transworld Associates operates the TW-1 submarine cable and handles most of the remaining 40% of international traffic – System connects to Oman and UAE

• Relatively weak terrestrial connectivity to neighbors – Afghanistan links are reportedly operational – Operation of Pakistan-Iran link could not be confirmed – India-Pakistan cable constructed but not activated – Contract awarded to Huawei Technologies in 2013 to implement a fiber

link to China via the Khunjerab Pass Pakistan has access to three interregional submarine cables and a

fourth regional system, but terrestrial connectivity is weak


Sri Lanka: Int’l. Infrastructure • Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) is an investor in the Sea-

Me-We-3 (1999) and Sea-Me-We-4 (2005) cables, as well as the planned Sea-Me-We-5 (2016)

• Dialog Axiata is an investor in the proposed Bay of Bengal Gateway (BBG) submarine cable (2016)

• Three regional submarine cables connect to India and Maldives

Sri Lanka’s international connectivity is sufficient.


Turkey: Int’l. Infrastructure • Turkey’s primary international link is the Telecom Italia-owned Med Nautilus

cable (2004/2011) which connects to Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Israel – The network’s expansion to Turkey was funded by a $40 million, 15-year IRU commitment

by Turk Telekom, which operates the system’s cable station in Istanbul

• Turk Telekom also purchased significant capacity from OTE via the Trans Balkan Network (TBN)

• Pan-European operator Interoute expanded its pan-European network from Bulgaria to Istanbul in 2010

– Recently offered 10 Gbps wavelength from Istanbul to European POPs for €10,000 per month, with a 50% premium for protection and 100% for IP transit (=$1.30 to $2.60 per Mbps

• Turkey’s international terrestrial connectivity is robust and it also participates in several regional submarine cable systems

– Investor in JADI Link and RCN pan-regional systems, however both are inactive due to Syrian Civil War

– No identified connectivity to Armenia

Turkey has robust access to European IP transit connectivity and has attempted to leverage this to serve as a transit provider for Central Asia


Table of Fiber Connectivity in the Region

Bangla-desh

Bhutan India Islamic Rep of Iran Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Turkey Other Borders

Bangla-desh

4,053km bor-der: Multiple

fiber links (& SMW4)

No direct

submarine cable links

Sea-Me-We-4

submarine cable

Sea-Me-We-4 (& planned

Sea-Me-We-5 Myanmar (193km) – fiber

under implementation

Bhutan

605 km border:

multiple fiber links

China (470km) – no fiber

India 4,053km border:


605 km border: multiple

fiber links

Falcon & GBI

submarine cables

WARF Telecom

submarine cable

1,690 km border:


2,912 km border: unlit cable (SMW/ IMW cables

Sea-Me-We-3, Sea-Me-We-4,

BLCS

China (3,380km) – multiple fiber links

Myanmar (1,463km) – fiber present

Islamic Republic of Iran

No direct


909 km bor-der: fiber

under development

No direct submarine cable links

499 km border:


Afghanist. (936km) - yes Armenia (35km) - yes

Azerbaijan (432km) - yes Iraq (1,458km) - yes

Turkmen. (992km) - yes

Maldives No direct


WARF Telecom

submarine cable


No direct


Dhiraagu Submarine

Cable, WARF Subm. Cable

N/A

Nepal

1,690 km border:


China (1,236km) – proposed fiber; could not be confirmed

Pakistan Sea-Me-We-4

submarine cable

2,912 km border: unlit cable (SMW/ IMW cables

909 km bor-der: fiber

under development


Sea-Me-We-3, Sea-Me-We-4

Afghanistan (2,430km) – yes China (523km) – fiber under

implementation

Sri Lanka Sea-Me-We-4

(& planned Sea-Me-We-5)

Sea-Me-We-3, Sea-Me-We-4,

BLCS


Dhiraagu & WARF subm.

cables Sea-Me-We-3,

Sea-Me-We-4 N/A

Turkey

499 km border –


Armenia (268 km): No Azerbaijan (9km): Yes Bulgaria (240km): Yes Georgia (252km): Yes Greece (206km): Yes

Iran (499km) : Yes Iraq (352km): Yes Syria (822km): Yes


Analysis of Priority Trans-Border Projects International Border (and border length) Analysis Recommendation

Bangladesh / India (4,053 kilometers) Low Priority

The border between Bangladesh and India is served by one existing terrestrial fiber link, as well as an additional terrestrial fiber link currently under implementation. The two countries are also linked by the Sea-Me-We-4 submarine cable and will be linked by the proposed Sea-Me-We-5 submarine cable.

Given that Indian operators BSNL and Bharti Airtel have activated terrestrial fiber connectivity between the two countries (with additional terrestrial link under implementation by Tata), and given existing and planned submarine connectivity between the two countries, there is no strong requirement for additional terrestrial fiber between Bangladesh and India.

Bangladesh / Myanmar (193 kilometers) High Priority

Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) and the Bangladesh Submarine Cable Company Ltd. (BSCCL) are in the process of implementing a terrestrial fiber link between the two countries.

Additional fiber links are needed in order to ensure that Bangladesh has redundant bilateral connectivity with more than one country.

Bhutan / India (605 kilometers) High Priority

Although Bhutan has two terrestrial links to India, with the first completed in 2007 and the second in 2011, both fiber paths converge in Siliguri, raising concerns about the vulnerability of Bhutan’s international connectivity.

Diversification of Bhutan’s fiber links to India is urgently needed in order to ensure the robustness of the country’s international connectivity.

India / China (3,880 kilometers) Medium Priority

There are three fiber links between China and India, linking China to the Indian networks of Bharti, Reliance, and Tata.

The ability of the Chinese terrestrial route to provide an outlet for Indian international demand, coupled with the relative fragility of existing fiber links, indicates a need for more robust fiber links between the two countries.

India / Nepal (1,690 kilometers) Medium Priority

Nepal Telecom is linked to the Indian networks of Reliance, BSNL, and Bharti Airtel via multiple border crossings.

Despite multiple fiber links, the importance of India’s connections with Nepal requires mesh-like connectivity across the countries’ border.

International Border (and border length) Analysis Recommendation

India / Myanmar (1,463 kilometers)

A 640-kilometer terrestrial fiber link was completed in 2010 at a cost of $7 million and is operated by BSNL and Myanmar Post and Telecommunications (MPT).

The India-Myanmar border is a critical corridor for connectivity between India and Southeast Asia, requiring multiple fiber links.

India / Pakistan (2,912 kilometers) High Priority

A terrestrial fiber link has been constructed between India and Pakistan, but security agencies on both sides of the border have refused to allow its use for non-voice traffic. The cable remains dormant as of mid-2014.

Deploying more robust connectivity between India and Pakistan could be an important step to ensure regional stability, although there is currently little political momentum to do so.

Nepal / China (1,236 kilometers) High Priority

A link between China and Nepal via Tatopani was proposed in 2010 but as of 2014 the status of its development could not be confirmed.

Given Nepal’s almost exclusive reliance upon terrestrial connectivity with India, the country is in urgent need of diversified connectivity via China.

Islamic Republic of Iran / Pakistan (909 kilometers) Medium Priority

Although Iran has strong fiber connectivity with each of its neighbors, the Iran-Pakistan border has historically lacked fiber and the implementation of a trans-border link could not be confirmed as of mid-2014.

Improved connectivity between Iran and Pakistan would provide both countries with improved interregional access, i.e. from Iran to South Asia and from Pakistan to northwestern destinations.

Islamic Republic of Iran / Turkey (499 kilometers) Low Priority

There are multiple fiber links between Iran and Turkey, and Telecommunications Infrastructure Company of Iran has set a target of 1.1 Tbps of bandwidth across the countries’ border by 2017.

There is no urgent requirement for improved connectivity between Iran and Turkey.

Pakistan / China (523 kilometers) High Priority

A fiber link between Pakistan and China is currently under construction in the Khunjerab Pass.

Both Pakistan and China would benefit from improved fiber connectivity, as the single fiber link under implementation is not considered to be a definitive, long-term solution for linking the two countries with robust connectivity.

Turkey/ Armenia (268 kilometers) High Priority

Terabit Consulting did not identify any activated fiber capacity between Turkey and Armenia.

Given the gradual improvement of relations between the two countries, as well as increasing opportunities for closer social and economic cooperation,


Summary of Priority Projects High Priority Trans-Border Projects

Bangladesh / Myanmar Bhutan / India India / Myanmar India / Pakistan Nepal / China Pakistan / China Turkey / Armenia

Medium Priority Trans-Border Projects

India / China India / Nepal

Islamic Republic of Iran / Pakistan


Part 3: Why a Coherent, Open-Access, Cost-Effective

Pan-Asian Fiber Infrastructure Would Benefit the Region


Telecommunications and Internet development in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, and Pakistan, as well as each country’s overall economy, has greatly suffered as a result of weak international

infrastructure.

Reason #1

Why a Coherent Pan-Asian Infrastructure Would Benefit the Region


The Impact of Low International Bandwidth & Weak International Infrastructure

• At the macro level: a major obstacle to economic and human development – Detachment from digital economy – Continued economic inefficiencies and restrained growth – Lack of access to critical social development tools including

telemedicine, distance learning, scientific/research networks • More specifically within the telecom environment:

higher wholesale and consumer prices, and lower broadband adoption rates – Average IP transit price in secondary and tertiary markets in

the region is $60 per Mbps • Compared to Mumbai: $12 per Mbps • Compared to Turkey: $2.60 per Mbps • Compared to USA: $1 per Mbps


Despite their developed international connectivity, the markets in the study with strong, low-cost bandwidth (e.g. India and Turkey) would greatly benefit from improved pan-regional terrestrial fiber.

Reason #2

Why a Coherent Pan-Asian Infrastructure Would Benefit the Region


Pan-Regional Fiber Benefits Markets with Strong Connectivity

• Mesh connectivity throughout the region would increase all countries’ network reliability and provide critical outlets of connectivity – Allowing India to have a stronger alternative to the

Egyptian bottleneck, for instance

• Stimulating the region’s overall demand presents a greater market opportunity for transit providers and cable operators including Turk Telekom, Tata, and Reliance


Coherent pan-Asian terrestrial fiber optic infrastructure would benefit markets across the continent and beyond, and help address one of the international bandwidth industry’s most pressing concerns, namely the lack of reliable, cost-effective Europe-to-Asia bandwidth. In financial terms, the viability of constructing coherent pan-Asian terrestrial fiber optic connectivity can likely be guaranteed by capturing even a small portion of bandwidth demand between Asia and Western Europe.

Reason #3 Why a Coherent Pan-Asian Infrastructure Would Benefit the Region


Strong Europe-to-Asia Bandwidth Demand

Source: The Undersea Cable Report by Terabit Consulting

Lit Capacity, Submarine Cables serving South Asia (incl. Europe-Asia), 2007-2013


Terrestrial as a Solution for Submarine

Source: The Undersea Cable Report 2014 by Terabit Consulting

The global telecommunications industry is desperate for a cost-effective solution that would avoid undersea choke points.


A Pan-Asian Terrestrial Network Would Be More Competitive than Europe-Asia Submarine

Submarine Terrestrial

Connectivity Cable station to cable station, with expensive backhaul

POP-to-POP

Repair Faults take weeks to repair; ships running costs $50,000+ per day

Networks accessible by highway can be quickly repaired at low cost

Capacity and Upgrades

Long-haul limited to 8 fiber pairs; submerged electronics poses limitation

Unlimited capacity with proper duct installation and maintenance

Costs Unrepeatered 3-fiber pair cable: $12,500 per km, marine services $20k-$40k / km

$1,250 per km with marginal fiber costs of as low as $60 per km

Risk and Reliability

No viable alternative to Egyptian bottleneck

Mesh configuration could offer “five nines” if properly designed


Part 4: The Case for Installing a Terrestrial Pan-Asian Fiber Optic Network Along Highway Rights-of-Way


International Highway Infrastructure

• In the near-term, many of the countries in the region will be upgrading existing highway infrastructure and installing new links

• Simultaneous installation of high-capacity fiber and ducts would be a negligible marginal cost in most projects


Installing Fiber within a Road Project • In the US (high labor-cost market), conduit+fiber

installation during open road construction costs between USD$6,000 and USD$18,000 per kilometer

• Road installation costs at least USD$1.8 million per lane, per kilometer

• Cost of fiber network installation during open road construction: much less than 1% of project total

Photos: Terabit Consulting


Part 5: The Case for Intervention to Ensure Network Development


Market Failure: Broadband Divide • The analysis showed that the growing chasm

between the broadband “have” and “have-not” markets results in vast differences in: – international fiber connectivity – domestic connectivity – the pricing of IP transit capacity – the competitiveness of telecommunications and Internet

market – fixed and mobile broadband infrastructure – the affordability of consumer broadband services

• This impacts overall economic growth and development.

• Landlocked markets can’t compete using the existing trans-border (bilateral) infrastructure.


The Need for Intervention Intervention (by government or int’l. organizations) is required to ensure the implementation of a pan-Asian terrestrial fiber optic network for 5 reasons: 1. To overcome the region’s vast broadband inequality and

assist landlocked nations. 2. To ensure that the region receives broadband services on

a par with more developed markets. 3. To finance or assist in financing a major capital project

that is unlikely to be fully financed by the private sector. 4. To pool and leverage private-sector resources which are

disparately insufficient. 5. To stimulate and facilitate future private investment

through market development and maturation.


Options for Government/UN Participation

Asian Terrestrial Fiber Optic

Connectivity

Construction of Coherent, Pan-

Asian Terrestrial Fiber Network

Intervention by Government / Int'l.

Organization to Ensure Implementation

Full Government / Int'l. Organization

Ownership and Project Management

Choice of Project Design and Engineering, Supplier,

Maintenance Authority, Operational Plan

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) /

Private Sector Project Management

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with Government

Shareholding (Investment)

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with Government Contribution (Subsidy)

Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)

Project Management Contract

Marketplace Left to Implement Its Own Coherent Solution Continued Use of

Fractured, Bilateral Terresrial Fiber Infrastructure


Available Public-Private Partnership Options Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Model with Government/Organizational Shareholding

• Network operators form a special purpose vehicle to assume full responsibility for the development, operation, and maintenance of the pan-Asian terrestrial network.

• Government, organizational, and/or developmental entities make capital contributions to the SPV and receive equity stakes and/or capacity on the network.

• The contributor(s) receive a seat on the board of the SPV, thereby ensuring that policy goals are achieved. • A regulatory framework is adapted to ensure that the SPV’s outcome fulfills policy goals and improves the overall welfare of the

region. • The contributor’s equity stake may be divested once certain milestones are achieved, or alternatively may be held until the

winding-down of the SPV.

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Model with Government/Organizational Contribution • Network operators form a special purpose vehicle with full responsibility for the pan-Asian terrestrial fiber optic network. • The government, organizational, and/or developmental entities make capital contributions to the SPV. • The contributor(s) do not receive equity or capacity on the network. • However, the contributor(s) do participate in the creation of the SPV’s governance framework, and receive a seat on the board of

the SPV. • Mechanisms are instituted to ensure that policy goals are met.

Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) • Following an open tender process, a concession is granted to one or more network operators for a fixed long-term duration

(typically 20 years). • The network operators are assigned full responsibility for financing, operating, and maintaining the cable. • Certain market privileges may be accorded to the network operators. • The operators are allowed to retain all revenues during the period of its concession. • Once the concession agreement expires, ownership of the network is assigned to the government(s) at no cost.

Awarding of Project Management Contract • A tender is issued to select one or more network operators responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance, and

commercialization of the pan-Asian terrestrial fiber optic network. • The contract recipient is paid to manage the cable and assume these responsibilities, including the sales of capacity to operators.

The contract recipient’s management fees may be fixed or based on a percentage of revenue. • The network remains the property of the Government(s), which collect all profits (less management fees).


Part 6: Principles to Guide Network Development


Principles to Guide Future Network Development

1. Fully integrated and coherent – Mesh configuration to allow for in-network healing in the event of

physical cable outages or political instability affecting connectivity in specific countries.

2. Functioning and monitored as single, uniform network – Existing multi-national terrestrial networks cannot offer uniform quality-

of-service guarantees between endpoints (as good as “weakest link” or “weakest operator”).

3. Leveraging existing infrastructure – Right-of-way procurement and uniform construction techniques would be

enabled through the use of the Asian Highway network, Pan-Asian Railway project, or power transmission networks.


Principles to Guide Future Network Development (Continued)

4. Cost-effective – With suitable transmission capacity and fiber count, a pan-regional

terrestrial fiber network could compete effectively with submarine cable on both a regional and intercontinental basis.

5. Open access and non-discriminatory pricing – In order to achieve development and policy goals, as well as to serve the

region’s consumers, all purchasers of capacity must be able to access the network on an equal, non-discriminatory basis.

6. Developed and managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) – SPV shareholding would ensure the neutrality and efficiency of the

network – Allows participation by all stakeholders while still maintaining arm’s-

length terms over all capacity sales and leases.


Part 7: Gaining Support for the Project


Stakeholder Participation is Key

• Key stakeholders should be involved in the project: – National Regulatory Authorities – Incumbent Operators and Major International Gateway

Operators – Competitive Telecommunications Operators and ISPs – Road and Railway Authorities/Operators

• Suppliers and contractors should also be consulted in the development stage


Convincing Governments of the Project’s Advantages

1. Benefits to consumers – Better, more cost-effective connectivity in the region will greatly

reduce consumer prices in less developed markets and improve broadband reliability throughout the region.

2. Economic growth – Improvement in ICT infrastructure yields:

• Increased demand for the output of other industries (demand multiplier) • New opportunities for production in other industries (supply multiplier) • New goods and services for consumers (final demand)

– It also increases firms’ innovation capabilities and increases the probability of new products, innovations, and organizations


Convincing Governments of the Project’s Advantages (Continued)

3. Increased government revenue – Growth in economic output from ICT investment results in

greater tax revenue – Increased employment in the telecommunications sector – Greater collections from telecom licenses and excise

4. Regional stability through better international and intercultural relations – More efficient routing of trans-border traffic would encourage

trans-border initiatives in the education, healthcare, and research sectors that would not otherwise be possible.


Road Map / Next Steps

• Critical international connectivity weaknesses throughout Asia are being identified by Terabit Consulting

• As more market analyses are completed, the viability of a coherent pan-Asian network is becoming clearer

• Detailed Feasibility Study (DFS) should be undertaken • Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costing exploration

should be initiated • Determination of support among stakeholders • Identification of financing options


Thank you!

Broadband Infrastructure in South Asia and West Asia Presentation.pdf · Broadband Infrastructure...

Documents

Transcript of Broadband Infrastructure in South Asia and West Asia Presentation.pdf · Broadband Infrastructure...