close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

86

код для вставкиСкачать
◆
The OECD Communications Outlook presents the most recent comparable data on the performance of the
communications sector in OECD countries and on their policy frameworks. The 1999 edition examines the major
changes and future trends in the telecommunications industry and explores developments in fast-moving areas such
as the Internet, broadcasting and cable television.
This industry now generates revenues of more than one trillion dollars, and its efficiency is increasingly
fundamental to economic and social development in OECD countries today. The major players driving the industry
are seeking new ways to respond to the challenges and opportunities, for example:
■ One in every five dollars spent on telecommunications now comes from mobile communication;
■ Internet traffic is now driving network construction and creating new patterns of communication via the
World Wide Web; and
■ New entrants have now captured 19% of the total telecommunications market.
OECD COMMUNICATIONS OUTLOOK 1999
OECD COMMUNICATIONS OUTLOOK 1999
Apart from an extensive range of indicators for the development of different communications networks and
companies, the OECD Communications Outlook also compares revenues, investment, employment and prices for
services throughout the OECD area.
The communications policy agenda has also dynamically evolved over the last few years.The telecommunications
sector is quickly expanding in OECD economies, gaining momentum from market liberalisation. Governments now
need to implement communications policies in a more timely fashion to respond to the infrastructure needs of
electronic commerce and the technological convergence of formerly distinct sectors.
This book is based on data from the Telecommunications Database 1999 which provides time series of
telecommunications and economic indicators, such as network dimensions, revenues, investment and employment
for OECD countries from 1980 to1997. For more information on major trends in information technology,
globalisation and the impact on the way people live and work, look for the OECD’s Information Technology
Outlook, published every other year.
(93 1999 02 1 P) FF 400
ISBN 92-64-17013-8
9:HSTCQE=V\UVXV:
OECD
www.oecd.org
99
OECD
COMMUNICATIONS
OUTLOOK
1999
 OECD, 1999.
 Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE.
All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction,
lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and
any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material.
All requests should be made to:
Head of Publications Service,
OECD Publications Service,
2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris
Cedex 16, France.
COMMUNICATIONS
OUTLOOK
1999
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force
on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote
policies designed:
– to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in
Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the
world economy;
– to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of
economic development; and
– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance
with international obligations.
The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently
through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969),
Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic
(21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and Korea (12th December 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the
OECD Convention).
Publié en français sous le titre :
PERSPECTIVES DES COMMUNICATIONS 1999
 OECD 1999
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the
Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France,
Tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission
should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: http://www.copyright.com/. All other applications for permission to reproduce or
translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
FOREWORD
This report, the fifth in a series of biennial Communications Outlooks, was prepared in the context of the
OECD’s work on the analysis of communication policy in Member countries.
The report has been drafted by the staff working in the OECD’s Science, Technology and Industry Directorate. They are grateful for the contribution of the Public Telecommunication Operators who provided information, and that of national delegations which responded, during 1998, to an OECD questionnaire relating to
industry regulation and data.
The assistance and co-operation of the International Telecommunication Union, particularly in regard to
historical data, is also gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the OECD now works with the Eurodata Foundation
to provide tariff comparisons, quarterly updates of which are available directly from Eurodata. Many of the
other indicators in this report are available on diskette from the OECD’s Telecommunications Database 1999,
covering the period 1980 to 1997.
A draft of the report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services
Policies at its meeting on 14-15 September 1998. Subsequently the Committee for Information, Computer and
Communications Policy recommended that the report be made available to the general public. It is published
on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.
3
OECD 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................
11
The Road to Regulatory Reform ..............................................................................................................................
Communication Markets in the OECD Area ...........................................................................................................
Leading PTOs in OECD Area ....................................................................................................................................
11
15
16
Recent Communication Policy Developments .................................................................................
25
A Decade of Change ..................................................................................................................................................
Regulatory Safeguards ..............................................................................................................................................
Future Regulatory Challenges .................................................................................................................................
25
28
37
Telecommunication Market Size .......................................................................................................
45
Market Drivers ...........................................................................................................................................................
45
Network Dimensions and Development ...........................................................................................
65
Growth in Countries with Low Network Penetration .............................................................................................
Developments in Countries with High Network Penetration ..............................................................................
Digitalisation ..............................................................................................................................................................
Network Investment ..................................................................................................................................................
66
66
68
69
Internet Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................
85
Number of Internet Users .........................................................................................................................................
Internet Hosts ............................................................................................................................................................
Internet Servers .........................................................................................................................................................
Domain Names ..........................................................................................................................................................
IP Addresses ...............................................................................................................................................................
The Internet and Convergence ................................................................................................................................
The World Wide Web ................................................................................................................................................
85
85
88
91
93
96
98
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Broadcasting Services ......................................................................................................................... 109
Broadcasting Market ................................................................................................................................................. 109
Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 112
Emerging Trends: Digital Television ....................................................................................................................... 114
Chapter 7.
Telecommunication Pricing ................................................................................................................ 155
Main Trends in Pricing ..............................................................................................................................................
Business, Residential and International Baskets ..................................................................................................
Internet Access Prices ...............................................................................................................................................
Leased Lines ..............................................................................................................................................................
Cellular Mobile Communication ..............................................................................................................................
OECD 1999
155
161
175
186
188
5
Communications Outlook 1999
Chapter 8.
Quality of Service .................................................................................................................................. 193
Connections ................................................................................................................................................................
Pay Phones .................................................................................................................................................................
Network Faults and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................
Value-added Service .................................................................................................................................................
Answer Seizure Ratios ...............................................................................................................................................
193
195
198
198
200
Chapter 9.
Employment and Productivity ............................................................................................................. 207
Chapter 10.
Trade in Communication Equipment .............................................................................................. 219
Chapter 11.
Communication Aid ............................................................................................................................ 237
Lower aid volumes ....................................................................................................................................................
Donor countries and organisations .........................................................................................................................
Recipients of communication aid ............................................................................................................................
Application of communication aid ...........................................................................................................................
Associated financing ..................................................................................................................................................
237
237
241
242
244
Statistical Annex ........................................................................................................................................................ 247
List of Tables
6
1.1. Status of telecommunication facilities competition in the OECD, January 1999 ....................................
1.2. Major public telecommunication operators in the OECD area with revenues greater
than US$1 billion, 1997 ..................................................................................................................................
1.3. Major cellular mobile telecommunication operators in the OECD area, 1997 .......................................
1.4. Main indicators for incumbent and new public telecommunication operators in the OECD. .............
2.1. National long distance market shares of new operators ...........................................................................
2.2. International market share of new market entrants ...................................................................................
2.3. Status of major telecommunication network operators (November 1998) .............................................
2.4. Interconnection frameworks ..........................................................................................................................
2.5. Foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications ............................................................................
2.6. Treatment of Internet telephony ..................................................................................................................
3.1. Public telecommunication revenue in the OECD area ..............................................................................
3.2. Major growth areas in telecommunication revenue: mobile telecommunication .................................
3.3. Public telecommunication revenue ratios ..................................................................................................
3.4. Cellular mobile telecommunication revenue per cellular mobile subscriber .......................................
3.5. Major areas of PTO expenditure, 1997 .........................................................................................................
3.6. Public telecommunication revenue as a percentage of GDP ...................................................................
3.7. Major growth areas of telecommunication revenue: international telecommunication
revenue, 1997 ..................................................................................................................................................
3.8. International telecommunication traffic ......................................................................................................
3.9. Telephone traffic between OECD countries, 1996 .....................................................................................
3.10. R&D expenditures for PTOs and telecommunications equipment manufacturers, 1997 .....................
3.11. Revenues and R&D expenditures for manufacturers of Internet equipment, 1995-97 .........................
3.12. US Patent Office: Number of patents granted in electronic equipment and components industry ...
4.1. Telecommunication access lines in the OECD area ...................................................................................
4.2. Access lines per 100 inhabitants in the OECD area ...................................................................................
4.3. Cellular mobile subscribers in the OECD area ...........................................................................................
4.4. Cellular mobile development, 1997 ............................................................................................................
4.5. Digitalisation in the OECD area ....................................................................................................................
4.6. Deployment of fibre optic cable in the OECD area ...................................................................................
12
17
20
22
27
29
32
34
38
40
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
63
64
73
74
75
76
77
78
OECD 1999
Table of Contents
4.7.
4.8.
4.9.
4.10.
4.11.
4.12.
4.13.
4.14.
4.15.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
5.6.
5.7.
5.8.
5.9.
5.10.
5.11.
5.12.
5.13.
5.14.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
6.7.
6.8.
6.9.
6.10.
6.11.
6.12.
6.13.
6.14.
6.15.
6.16.
6.17.
6.18.
6.19.
6.20.
6.21.
6.22.
6.23.
6.24.
6.25.
6.26.
6.27.
7.1.
ISDN subscribers in the OECD area ............................................................................................................
Public telecommunication investment in the OECD area ........................................................................
Telecommunication investment by region .................................................................................................
Public telecommunication investment as a percentage of revenue .......................................................
Public telecommunication investment as a percentage of GFCF ............................................................
Public telecommunication investment per access line .............................................................................
Public telecommunication investment per access path ...........................................................................
Public telecommunication investment per capita .....................................................................................
Expenditure on switching and transmission infrastructure, 1997 ............................................................
Internet hosts in OECD countries ................................................................................................................
Web servers in OECD countries ...................................................................................................................
Secure Web servers for electronic commerce ............................................................................................
Second, third domain registered domain names in OECD area (July 1998) ...........................................
Domain name pricing, May 1998 ..................................................................................................................
Leading IP allocations and reservations by IANA, May 1998 ....................................................................
Leading IP allocations from RIPE, April 1998 ..............................................................................................
Leading IP allocations from APNIC, January 1998 ......................................................................................
Leading IP assignments from APNIC and RIPE, by country .................................................................... ..
Comparative World Wide Web development (June 1998) ........................................................................
World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) ..................................................................
Percentage of all World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) ....................................
Percentage of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (excluding intra-domains)
(July 1998) ........................................................................................................................................................
Balance of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) ...............................................
Broadcasting market revenue in OECD countries .....................................................................................
Television broadcasting market revenue in OECD countries ..................................................................
Ranking by audiovisual turnover of the 50 leading companies in the world, 1996 ...............................
Advertising revenue in the television broadcasting market ....................................................................
Subscription revenue in the television broadcasting market ..................................................................
Public funding in the television broadcasting market ..............................................................................
Broadcasting market revenue as percentage of GDP and revenue per inhabitant ...............................
Number of broadcasting companies in the OECD area ............................................................................
Status of major terrestrial television broadcasting companies in the OECD area ................................
Number of television channels viewable in the OECD area ....................................................................
Penetration rate of households with television sets and television sets per household
in OECD countries ..........................................................................................................................................
Average household television viewing time per day (in hours) ..............................................................
Number of cable television subscribers in OECD countries ....................................................................
Number of Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) subscribers in OECD countries ........................................
Number of subscribers to major satellite television channel packages .................................................
Definition of “broadcasting” in OECD countries ........................................................................................
“Must carry” rules in the OECD area ............................................................................................................
Major domestic and local content requirements in the OECD area .......................................................
Regulatory treatment of “webcasting service” in OECD countries ..........................................................
Broadcasting administration and regulation in the OECD area ...............................................................
Specific cross sector ownership restrictions in OECD countries ..............................................................
Ownership restrictions on television services in OECD countries ..........................................................
Cross media ownership restrictions in OECD countries ...........................................................................
Foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasting services in OECD countries .......................................
Scheduled plans for digital broadcasting in OECD countries ..................................................................
Major digital direct broadcasting satellite (DBS) services in the OECD area ........................................
Preparation for digital terrestrial television in selected OECD countries ..............................................
Charging practices for residential users in the OECD area, 1998 .............................................................
OECD 1999
79
80
80
81
81
82
83
84
84
86
88
90
92
93
96
97
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
127
128
128
129
131
133
135
136
139
141
144
146
148
151
152
157
7
Communications Outlook 1999
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
7.13.
7.14.
7.15.
7.16.
7.17.
7.18.
7.19.
7.20.
7.21.
7.22.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
8.7.
8.8.
8.9.
8.10.
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
9.5.
9.6.
9.7.
9.8.
9.9.
10.1.
10.2.
10.3.
10.4.
10.5.
10.6.
8
10.7.
10.8.
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.
OECD basket of business telephone charges, August 1998 .....................................................................
OECD basket of residential telephone charges, August 1998 ..................................................................
Tariff regulation in OECD countries ..............................................................................................................
Collection charges per minute (peak rate), August 1998 ..........................................................................
Collection charges per minute (off-peak rate), August 1998 .....................................................................
OECD International Tariff Basket, August 1998 ...........................................................................................
OECD International Tariff Basket, August 1998 ...........................................................................................
OECD trends in collection charges ..............................................................................................................
OECD basket of national and international business telephone charges, August 1998 .......................
OECD basket of national and international residential telephone charges, August 1998 ....................
Monthly basket of local PSTN residential charges, May 1998 ..................................................................
PTO monthly Internet access charges, July 1998 ........................................................................................
PTO monthly Internet access charges, July 1998 ........................................................................................
Peak rate Internet access basket, 1998 ........................................................................................................
Off-peak rate Internet access basket, 1998 .................................................................................................
Times series of leased line tariffs for OECD countries ..............................................................................
OECD basket of national leased line charges, August 1998 .....................................................................
Basket of national and international leased line charges, August 1998 ..................................................
Basket of international leased line charges, August 1998 .........................................................................
OECD basket of packet switched data communication charges, August 1998 .......................................
OECD basket of analogue mobile telecommunication tariffs, August 1998 ...........................................
Network access: waiting time for new connection ......................................................................................
Network access: outstanding applications for connection ........................................................................
Pay phones in the OECD area .......................................................................................................................
Quality of service: pay phones .....................................................................................................................
Quality of service: fault incidence and repair time ....................................................................................
Itemised billing ...............................................................................................................................................
Cost of itemised billing .................................................................................................................................
Caller line identification ................................................................................................................................
Directory assistance charges .........................................................................................................................
Answer seizure ratios .....................................................................................................................................
Number of PTO employees in the OECD area ...........................................................................................
PTO employment as per cent of total national employment ...................................................................
PTO access lines per employee ...................................................................................................................
PTO employment data by company, 1997 ..................................................................................................
Public telecommunication revenue per employee ...................................................................................
Number of employees in mobile telecommunications .............................................................................
Total PTO expenditure on wages and salaries ............................................................................................
Total PTO wages and salaries per employee and per access line ...........................................................
Telecommunications in the workplace ........................................................................................................
Breakdown of OECD communication equipment exports ........................................................................
Breakdown of OECD communication equipment imports ........................................................................
Communication equipment exports in OECD countries, by value, 1996 ................................................
Communication equipment imports in OECD countries, by value, 1996 ...............................................
Trade balances (export-imports) of OECD countries for communications equipment .........................
Evolution of the trade surplus/deficit per capita for the OECD countries for communications
equipment .......................................................................................................................................................
Exports of modems from the United States ................................................................................................
Imports of modems into the United States ................................................................................................
Leading donors of total aid and communication aid .................................................................................
ODA and other official flows from multilateral organisations ...................................................................
Export credits for associated financing of communication projects ........................................................
Export credits for associated financing of communication projects, by country, 1985-96 ....................
163
164
166
169
170
174
175
177
178
179
180
183
184
185
186
188
188
189
189
190
190
194
195
196
197
199
201
201
202
202
203
208
208
209
211
213
214
215
216
217
220
221
224
225
228
229
234
235
238
240
245
245
OECD 1999
Table of Contents
Statistical Annex
A.1.
A.2.
A.3.
A.4.
A.5.
Average annual exchange rates ....................................................................................................................
Purchasing power parities .............................................................................................................................
Consumer price index ....................................................................................................................................
Total population .............................................................................................................................................
Households .....................................................................................................................................................
249
250
251
252
253
List of Figures
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
2.1.
2.2.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
4.8.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
Fixed network infrastructure competition ...................................................................................................
Cellular mobile communication infrastructure competition .....................................................................
Proportions between incumbents and new entrants, 1997 .......................................................................
Proportions between incumbents and new entrants, 1995 .......................................................................
New entrants’ international market share....................................................................................................
Share of mobile subscribers by operator, 1997...........................................................................................
Trends in telecommunication revenue, investment and access paths, 1980-97 ....................................
Mobile telecommunication revenue in OECD countries, 1997 .................................................................
Public telecommunication revenue per access line, 1987 and 1997 ........................................................
Public telecommunication revenue per capita, 1987 and 1997 ................................................................
Cellular mobile telecommunication revenue per cellular mobile subscriber, 1995 and 1997..............
PTO revenue by sector ...................................................................................................................................
Minutes of outgoing international telecommunication traffic (MiTT), 1997 ............................................
US Patent Office: number of patents granted in electronic equipment and components industry ....
Access lines per 100 inhabitants in OECD countries, 1990, 1995 and 1997 .............................................
Cellular mobile subscribers in OECD countries..........................................................................................
Cellular mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants, 1997 ..............................................................................
Digitalisation in the OECD area, 1990-97 .....................................................................................................
Telecommunications investment by region, 1985-97 .................................................................................
Telecommunication investment as a percentage of PTO revenue and of GFCF, 1997...........................
Public telecommunication investment per access line..............................................................................
Public telecommunication investment per capita......................................................................................
Internet hosts per 1 000 inhabitants (incl. .com, .net, .org), July 1998......................................................
Web servers per 1 000 inhabitants (incl. .com, .net, .org), July 1998.........................................................
Secure Web servers for electronic commerce per 100 000 inhabitants, August 1998 ............................
Domain name registration costs....................................................................................................................
OECD tariff rebalancing by distance.............................................................................................................
Iceland Telecom: price of domestic telephone calls, 1988-97 ..................................................................
AT&T standard and discount prices, mid-1998 ...........................................................................................
OECD business tariff basket, August 1998 ...................................................................................................
OECD residential tariff basket, August 1998................................................................................................
OECD business and residential tariff basket trends ......................................................................... .........
OECD business tariff basket trends in different markets .................................................................... ......
OECD residential tariff basket trends in different markets.......................................................................
OECD tariff basket trends in different markets (total price) .....................................................................
OECD tariff rebalancing by distance.............................................................................................................
Time series of international collection charges and traffic ........................................................................
Off-peak rate Internet access basket, 1998, in US$ PPP .............................................................................
Pay phones in the OECD area, 1997 .............................................................................................................
Quality of service: faults per 100 lines per annum .....................................................................................
Answer seizure ratios, 1997............................................................................................................................
Answer seizure ratio and digitisation of access lines, 1990-97..................................................................
OECD 1999
13
13
23
23
29
30
46
47
48
48
49
51
52
53
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
87
89
91
94
159
160
162
165
165
171
171
172
172
173
176
187
196
200
204
204
9
Communications Outlook 1999
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
9.5.
10.1.
10.2.
10.3.
10.4.
10.5.
10.6.
10.7.
10.8.
11.1.
11.2.
11.3.
11.4.
11.5.
11.6.
PTO access lines per employee ....................................................................................................................
PTO access lines and mobile subscriptions per employee in the OECD area, 1980-97 ........................
Public telecommunication revenue per employee ....................................................................................
Number of employees in mobile telecommunications..............................................................................
PTO wages and salaries per employee and per access line, 1997............................................................
OECD trade in communications equipment, 1990-96 ................................................................................
OECD communications equipment exports, 1996 ......................................................................................
OECD communications equipment imports, 1996 ......................................................................................
Evolution of communications equipment exports, imports and trade balance of OECD
with selected Asian economies, 1990-96......................................................................................................
Evolution of the trade balance of communications equipment for selected
OECD regions/countries, 1990-96 ..................................................................................................................
Communications equipment trade surplus/deficit per capita, 1996 ........................................................
Communications equipment exports and imports in OECD countries by selected SITC categories ..
Trade of modems with the United States, 1994-97 .....................................................................................
Total aid and communication aid per year ..................................................................................................
Communication aid as a share of total aid, 1985-96....................................................................................
Communication aid by destination region, as a percentage of total communication aid
from DAC countries .........................................................................................................................................
Communication aid by region and by donor country, 1990-97..................................................................
Aid by DAC country group..............................................................................................................................
Communication aid by DAC aid recipients and by type of communication aid, 1990-97......................
210
210
213
214
216
219
222
222
226
227
23 0
231
233
238
239
241
242
243
244
10
OECD 1999
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is the fifth edition of the biennial OECD Communications Outlook. It provides a range of performance indicators for public communication infrastructures and services in the 29 OECD countries. In addition
to providing a comprehensive review of the telecommunication sector, the Communications Outlook includes data
and analysis of broadcasting, cable television and the Internet. The research has been carried out in the context
of the work programme of the OECD’s Committee on Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP)
and its Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policy (TISP).
The tables presented in this report provide communication indicators, in a harmonized format, using the
most recently available data. In the main, data are presented on a country-by-country basis. This task is
increasing difficult when using traditional information sources, owing to the rapid expansion in the number of
firms supplying communication services to the public and the increasing participation by service suppliers in
foreign markets. This is particularly true for public telecommunication operators (PTOs), once largely confined
to national boundaries but increasingly entering each other’s markets. In addition, technological convergence
and the ability of firms to supply the same services over different networks is increasingly blurring traditional
distinctions between industry segments. To complement the national figures, an extensive range of additional
firm-level data are provided for leading service suppliers. In general, data from earlier years are displayed to
enable analysis of developments over the past decade and to highlight future trends.
Most comparisons of the telecommunication sector are for 1997, but telecommunication tariff indicators
are provided for 1998. Data for Internet developments are also for 1998. Where countries report financial data
beyond the calendar year, these figures are taken to represent 1997.
The Road to Regulatory Reform
The first edition of the Communications Outlook noted a trend towards liberalisation of telecommunication
service and equipment markets, but noted also that significant differences existed among Member countries.
By 1990 only Japan, New Zealand and the United States had liberalised the provision of public switched telecommunication networks (PSTN). Even in these countries, competition was largely limited to long-distance and
international services. In other countries monopolies, and a small number of duopolies, were in place. The
United Kingdom had a duopoly for the provision of fixed telecommunication infrastructure and, along with a
small number of other countries, a duopoly for cellular mobile communication infrastructures.
Although the process commenced slowly, the benefits of liberalisation were increasingly evident to OECD
governments by the early 1990s. While most countries still had monopolies for the provision of PSTN services,
liberalisation was well under way in the provision of customer premise equipment and value added services.
Momentum was also building to permit resale of the underlying infrastructure and for the emerging market in
cellular mobile communications to be far less constrained by regulation than fixed networks.
Between 1990 and 1995 the pioneers of liberalisation were joined by Australia, Canada, Finland and
Sweden in a second wave of fixed network liberalisation. In some cases, such as Finland and Sweden, countries
went beyond the initial competition policies pioneered in the mid-1980s. Others mirrored the transitional
approach of the pioneers of fixed network liberalisation by adopting a duopoly (Australia) or by not opening
all market segments (Canada). Other countries had a different approach, for example Korea introduced
competition for international services in 1991. These two markets were fully liberalised when Australia ended
its duopoly (July 1997) and Canada ended Teleglobe’s monopoly over international service (October 1998).
OECD 1999
11
Communications Outlook 1999
As Table 1.1 shows, market structures for the public switched telecommunication network have changed
significantly in just over a year. Many countries have issued a number of new licences to new entrants, in most
cases to provide the range of public telephone services offered over the public switched telecommunication
network (PSTN). Some countries have already licensed a large number of new entrants. Clearly the roll-out of
the networks of new entrants will take time, so their impact on the market will be evolutionary. In addition to
facilities-based new entrants, many resellers are entering markets which were formerly closed to competition
for voice services. The marked progress in fixed network infrastructure competition is apparent in Figure 1.1
which maps the changing number of OECD countries opening their markets to new entrants.
Status of telecommunication facilities competition in the OECD, January 19991
Table 1.1.
PSTN competition
Local
Trunk
Intl.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
C (3)
C (2)
C (11)
C (61)
M/D
C (2)
C (11)
C (11)
C (22
M
C (3)
C (13)
C (11)
C
M
Denmark
Finland
France
C
C (64)
C (23)
C
C (20)
C (13)
C
C (16)
C (14)
Germany
Greece
C (49)
M
C (49)
M
C (49)
M
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
UK
US
M
C (1)
C (29)
C (5)
C (5)
D (2)
C
C (10)
C (160)
C (3)
C
D
M
C (3)
C (15)
C (12)
M
C (134)
C (1 480)
M 2002
C (1)
C (29)
C (4)
C (15)
C (3)
C
C (14)
C (3)
C (7)
C
M
M
C (3)
C (15)
C (12)
M
C (20+)
C (621)
M 2002
C (1)
C
C (4)
C (21)
C (3)
C
C (7)
C (3)
C (15)
C
M
M
C (3)
C (15)
C (12)
M
C (7)
C (360)
Year for market
competition
2nd operators in 7 special areas. Open
competition in 2001.
National long distance include
7 national operators
and 6 multi-regional.
2001; Consideration being given
to 2000 for competition.
2002
Open from 1.12.1998
Local competition starts in 1999
Open from July 1998
2003 for long distance and international
2000
2006
Mobile communication
Anal.
Digl.
Other mobile
C (1)
M
M
C (10)
M
C (3)
C (3)
C
C (10)
D
C (0)
M
M
C (2)
C (4)
C (2)
C (3)
M/D
C (28)
C (3)
M
–
C (4)
C (3)
C (31)
M
M
M
M
C (18)
M
–
D
C (1)
C (1)
M
M
M
M
C (1)
M
C
C (2)
RD
D
C (2)
C (3)
D
C (30)
C (3)
D
C (6)
C (2)
C (5)
C (3)
C
D
C (4)
C (3)
C (2)
C (4)
C (up to 6)
C (12)
M/D
C (2)
C (4)
C (32)
M/C
C (8)
C (2)
C (0)
–
C (3)
C
C (20+)
C (up to 6)
1.
Key: C: Competition; D: Duopoly; RD: Regional duopoly; M: Monopoly; Numbers in brackets indicate number of licensed operators, however, given
unrestricted market entry these numbers can change rapidly). In a number of cases all licensed operators are not yet active. For a number of countries
licences do not differentiate between local, national and international PSTN. For mobile, some countries report the total number of operators even if they
are licensed on a regional basis, whereas other countries indicate the number of licences allowed for each market. For mobile analogue services, there is a
formal monopoly in some countries, while in others the market may be open, although in practice it is unlikely that new licences will be given as this
technology is being phased out. Resellers are not included.
2.
January 1998.
Source: OECD.
12
As liberalisation developed in PSTN markets, a growing number of countries felt sufficiently confident in
the benefits of liberalisation to issue multiple licences for the provision of mobile communication infrastructure. In 1989 only six OECD countries did not have monopolies over the provision of cellular mobile communication infrastructure. Each of these six countries had duopolies. A decade later all OECD countries had licensed
OECD 1999
Introduction
Figure 1.1. Fixed network infrastructure competition
Duopoly
Monopoly
Open competition
Number of OECD countries
30
Number of OECD countries
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Source: OECD.
Figure 1.2. Cellular mobile communication infrastructure competition
Duopoly
Monopoly
Open competition
Number of OECD countries
30
Number of OECD countries
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1989
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
13
Communications Outlook 1999
at least two cellular mobile communication operators and most have three or more. In 1998, the United States
had up to six competing infrastructure providers in some service areas. The much more rapid change in cellular
mobile market liberalisation is shown in Figure 1.2.
While new technologies have undoubtedly played a role in changing communication markets, many of
these developments have been brought about by regulatory reform. The emergence of the Internet is a good
example of a service enabled by liberalisation. In the early 1980s many public telecommunication operators
introduced online information services and packet switched data networks. Yet the idea, current at that time,
of connecting the world’s computer hosts and databases did not take off until the advent of the Internet and
the World Wide Web. The historical regulatory barriers to the earlier emergence of a public Internet are worth
recounting. In many cases the monopolies granted to PTOs prevented any other value-added suppliers from
offering information services. Even where value-added suppliers could provide service, they often faced great
challenges. These included PTOs limiting the supply of bandwidth available or charging very high prices for
leased lines to their competitors in the value-added market. Nor could most users attach the equipment of
their choice to the PSTN and communicate with other users. At the same time, PTOs priced new data services
in ways that did not compete with existing voice services.
In 1980 the price of a telex between the United States and the United Kingdom was twice as expensive as
a telephone call (although the telephone call then required greater bandwidth). Yet, at that time, it was illegal
to send data over the telephone network without making a “datel call”, which was more expensive than a telex.
The advent of the Internet has turned this equation on its head. In 1998, some PTOs were more likely to be anxious about the pricing of Internet telephony calls made over data networks than vice versa. On the other hand, a
growing number of PTOs, recognise that distinctions between voice and data are not sustainable in a digital
environment. These PTOs, increasingly adept in competitive markets, view services such as Internet telephony
as an opportunity to expand the overall size of the communications market.
The historical comparison between telex and telephone tariffs is not made simply to show that PTO pricing
was not user friendly for data services. The main point is that the benefits of Internet, which users take for
granted today, would not have been possible without liberalisation of telecommunication infrastructure and
services. A major benefit of liberalisation is innovation in pricing, generated by new market entrants, which is
better suited for new services. This is not to argue that the pricing of Internet access services are ideal, particularly where the inherited pricing is based on the provision of voice rather than data services over the PSTN.
Nevertheless, it is worth remembering the starting point.
In 1980 an international telex with 1 000 characters sent within Europe cost an average of US$1.17
(expressed in 1998 dollars). In the same year the price to access a “Prestel” teletext page (comprising
960 characters of text or simple charts and diagrams) was around US$0.08 for a residential user in the
United Kingdom (expressed in 1998 dollars and excluding the local call charge). For an information service provider the cost of placing one teletext page on Prestel was US$8 per annum. Much has changed in the interim.
In 1998, for most residential users the price of sending electronic mail, browsing Web pages and creating
personal home pages is included in the basic fee for Internet access. Indeed, one leading company in the
United Kingdom launched a free Internet access service in association with a major Internet backbone provider
in September 1998.
14
The new pricing structures were pioneered by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who, in the past, would
have been called value-added service suppliers. Innovation in pricing related to Internet developments has
enabled far greater access to information in OECD countries in ways that would not have occurred with traditional PTO approaches to pricing. Consider, for example, that in 1975 there were around one million interactive
bibliographic searches performed in the United States for the entire year. In December 1997, Internet users
viewed an average of approximately 65 million Web pages per day from “Yahoo!” alone. By September 1998
this had grown to 144 million pages per day. Inktomi, a company operating Internet search engines, estimated
that in December 1997 the World Wide Web contained 200 million pages which it was possible to index. Of
course, a great deal of information available via the Internet cannot be indexed by search engines. For example, the British Library’s online catalogue must be searched individually via its Web site for users to access
information in its vast collection.
OECD 1999
Introduction
If developments in the communication sector have taken unexpected directions for PTOs, the outlook is,
nevertheless, very promising. While new service suppliers are free to enter telecommunication markets, PTOs
are also taking advantage of new business opportunities. One new application involves using mobile phones
for purchasing and paying for different kinds of goods and services. For example, in Finland, Sonera has demonstrated a service where products were bought from a vending machine using a cellular mobile telephone.
Instead of having to insert coins, the charge appears on a user’s cellular mobile phone bill when they dial a premium rate number. In Australia, Optus has introduced an electronic payment system over its cellular mobile
network. The alternative payment service is aimed at people on the move, such as couriers, taxis and those
providing home-repair services. The development of new services using communication networks can be
expected to open new markets and opportunities for PTOs even as they face greater competition in traditional
markets.
Communication Markets in the OECD Area
For users of telecommunication services, such as cellular mobile and the Internet, the benefits made possible by liberalisation are readily evident. One decade after the first edition of the Communications Outlook, the
evidence shows that PTOs have also benefited enormously from the stimulation provided by liberalisation.
In 1997 the market for public telecommunication services was US$623 billion in the OECD area. Between 1992
and 1997 this market grew by more than 7 per cent per annum. In 1997 the average profitability of leading PTOs
in OECD countries was nearly twice that of the average for Fortune Magazine’s largest global 500 companies. Revenues in the broadcasting market reached US$145 billion in 1997. Growth in this sector has been more modest
than in the telecommunication market, with an annual growth rate of 3 per cent per annum for broadcasters
since 1995. The total communication market in the OECD area, including telecommunication services, broadcasting services and communication equipment, exceeded one trillion dollars for the first time in 1997.
One of the main drivers of growth in the telecommunication market has been cellular mobile communication. Cellular mobile communication now accounts for 20 per cent of the overall telecommunication market.
Significantly, in 1997, the mobile communication services market was almost three times the size of the international telecommunication services market. Yet, even that figure understates the impact of mobile communication because its underestimates the stimulation it has provided for the fixed network. In other words, calls
between fixed and mobile networks are generating considerable revenues for PTOs. Similarly, Internet access
is generating a very large new revenue stream for PTOs in traditional and new service areas. For PTOs with measured local service the Internet is boosting revenues through calls of longer duration. Demand for second residential lines has also increased dramatically due to the Internet. At the same time, demand for higher-speed
access services, such as ISDN, have increased at an unprecedented rate due to the Internet. Moreover, sales of
leased lines (local, national and international) are at record levels due to the Internet. PTOs are also entering
new markets, pioneered by ISPs, such as Internet access, hosting content for the World Wide Web and in managing private intranets.
The emergence of electronic commerce holds tremendous potential to increase the size of these markets.
New services, such as Internet telephony, which are sometimes cast as a threat to traditional revenue sectors,
may prove to be important enabling tools for electronic commerce. From the perspective of the PTOs the most
important outcome is the overall impact of the Internet on revenues rather than on a particular market segment.
To date, the Internet has had a positive impact on the revenues of PTOs. That being said, PTOs are having to
adjust to a new world of end-to-end service provision in a completely liberalised market. This adjustment cannot be made within traditional operating structures and with the settlement agreements between PTOs that
characterised monopoly provision of service in the past.
The changing structure and growth of international undersea cable capacity gives a good indication of the
rapid pace of change and the new operating environment faced by PTOs. This is, in particular, noticeable to and
from the United States. In 1996 the number of activated circuits in use between the United States and the rest
of the world increased by 50 per cent from the previous year. This growth was not primarily driven by PSTN traffic. While international message telephone service (IMTS) grew by 19 per cent, this was accommodated by an
increase of 11 per cent in the number of activated circuits. By way of contrast, the number of activated circuits
being put to other uses, such as Internet backbones and refile, grew by 207 per cent. As a result, some 59 per
OECD 1999
15
Communications Outlook 1999
cent of activated circuits between the United States and the rest of the world were used for IMTS at the end
of 1996, compared to 80 per cent a year earlier. In a single year the number of activated circuits used for IMTS
between the United States and the Netherlands decreased from 64.5 per cent to 35.4 per cent. A number of
new scheduled undersea cable systems are expected to triple Europe-North America capacity over the next
five years, and to increase Europe-Asia capacity over ten-fold during the same period.
The growth in intercontinental capacity, stimulated by Internet traffic, has resulted in capacity allocated to
Internet traffic exceeding voice capacity (for example, between Japan and the United States) on some routes.
At the same time an important change has taken place in the diversification of cable structures in that many
regional undersea networks are being developed which will directly link the different countries in these
regions. This is the case in Asia and in the Mediterranean region, but many coastal African countries are also
being linked directly through submarine cables.
The new balance of international transmission capacity in use reflects the change in underlying industry
structures. Revenues have increased for those PTOs that adapt quickly to the new environment. For example,
the size of the international leased line market between the United States and the rest of the world increased
by 17 per cent in 1995, by some 28 per cent in 1996 and by a further 29 per cent in 1997. Yet, at a time when the
number of cable and terrestrial circuits activated between the United States and the rest of the OECD area
increased by 75 per cent, the number of activated satellite circuits decreased by 8 per cent. This undoubtedly
reflects a judgement by the market on the benefits of different technologies for high-volume traffic routes. It
might also reflect the fact that the market structures evolving for undersea and terrestrial cable have adapted
more rapidly than the traditional structures surrounding the provision of satellite capacity.
Leading PTOs in OECD Area
In general, the methodology used in the Communications Outlook shows data on a country-by-country basis.
Data are also shown for the leading PTOs in the OECD area on a company-by-company basis (Table 1.2). These
data provide an additional perspective on industry development to complement data presented on a national
basis because the forces outlined in the previous sections mean that country-by-country analysis no longer
fully captures the dimensions of communication markets. These include records of market entry and, though
there has yet to be a major occurrence, market exit. In the world of monopoly PTOs, neither event occurred. Nor
was it necessary to consider the effects of increasing or decreasing industry concentration or the impact of globalisation. Clearly, in the new environment all these factors are important for a accurate overview of the outlook
for the communication industry.
The combined revenue of PTOs with headquarters in the OECD area stood at US$639 billion in 1997. This
figure includes revenue earned outside the OECD area (e.g. Cable & Wireless’s share in the revenue of
Hong Kong Telecom) as well as an element of double counting due to globalisation. In 1997 there were 64 PTOs
with revenue greater than US$1 billion. This is a considerable increase over 1995 when, including countries
which have subsequently become OECD Members, there were 52 PTOs in the OECD area with revenue greater
than US$1 billion. In turn, this number was up from the 42 PTOs with revenues greater than US$1 billion in 1992.
The growth in the number of PTOs with revenues greater than US$1 billion is mainly due to liberalisation allowing new players to enter fixed and mobile communication markets.
In 1992 there were only two cellular mobile companies, McCaw and Vodafone, which were independent
from traditional PTOs, with revenues greater than US$1 billion. By 1995 this number had grown to four and
by 1997 it had increased to ten. During this time McCaw was taken over by AT&T. On the other hand, AirTouch
was split off from Pacific Telesis and 360 Communications from Sprint to form separate companies. Other major
new entrants include TIM (the cellular mobile company split off from Telecom Italia), SK Telecom (Korea),
Mannessmann, Cégétel (including SFR), Orange, TDS and Omnitel.
16
Apart from the United States, there have been no mergers of PTOs in the 1992 list. While full mergers have
been discussed between PTOs both domestically (e.g. BT and Cable & WirelessCable & Wireless) and internationally (e.g. Telia and Telenor), none, as yet, have been consummated. There have been, of course, an increasing number of international investments (e.g. Ameritech in TeleDanmark and Belgacom) and exchange of shares
(e.g. France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom), but these companies continue to report as separate entities. By
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 1.2. Major public telecommunication operators in the OECD area with revenues greater than US$1 billion, 1997
Country
Revenue
NTT
AT&T
Deutsche Telekom
Bell Atlantic
France Telecom
BT
Telecom Italia
SBC Communications
GTE
Bell South
MCI
Telefonica
Ameritech
US West Inc
Sprint
Cable and Wireless
Telstra
DDI Corp.
KPN Telecom
Telmex
Worldcom
Swisscom
Bell Canada
Telia
TIM Telecom Italia Mobile
Korea Telecom
Tele Danmark
Belgacom
Vodafone
Mannesmann
(Mobilfunk, Arcor, Eurokom)
PTA
Telenor
Airtouch
Japan Telecom
AllTEL
Türk Telekom
Portugal Telecom
KDD
OTE
TPSA
SK Telecom
Frontier Corp.
Telecom, NZ
Telecom Eireann
Southern New England Telephone
BC-Tel
Optus
Cegetel (incl. SFR)
Cincinnati Bell
LCI International
Finnet Group
Orange
Japan
United States
Germany
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
United States
United States
United States
United States
Spain
United States
United States
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Japan
Netherlands
Mexico
United States
Switzerland
Canada
Sweden
Italy
Korea
Denmark
Belgium
United Kingdom
78
51
38
30
26
25
25
24
23
20
19
16
15
15
14
13
11
9
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
099
319
957
194
851
597
168
856
260
561
653
141
998
235
874
588
866
738
931
663
351
775
676
083
553
271
624
244
044
Germany
Austria
Norway
United States
Japan
United States
Turkey
Portugal
Japan
Greece
Poland
Korea
United States
New Zealand
Ireland
United States
Canada
Australia
France
United States
United States
Finland
United Kingdom
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
916
734
608
594
403
263
159
136
015
970
594
378
353
246
053
022
990
860
809
757
642
537
495
Net
Deprecia- Operating
interest
tion
income
paid
18
3
10
5
5
3
5
4
3
3
2
4
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
858
827
725
864
322
920
636
922
886
964
082
117
521
420
726
363
087
319
368
520
921
199
887
092
578
734
773
948
390
590
..
576
789
304
451
352
649
407
318
..
594
207
326
485
379
414
327
582
185
96
275
167
7
6
4
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
207
968
150
342
333
985
904
170
611
376
675
511
799
806
451
574
269
567
792
654
099
407
679
634
820
301
434
773
164
1 928
191
3 672
1 230
1 075
408
295
947
1 145
761
235
1 282
505
1 083
187
502
312
145
264
403
320
278
435
96
–21
37
151
415
80
1 234
..
271
706
267
747
1 432
857
107
1 102
..
396
292
1 016
365
398
405
113
–211
313
98
156
–83
3
..
65
90
29
130
..
4
8
60
..
65
48
83
29
90
96
95
..
35
36
..
144
4
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Tax
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
457
721
081
529
028
452
951
863
1 624
2 151
90
265
1 388
522
631
399
230
331
503
829
416
1
574
175
895
33
296
231
333
584
..
110
191
116
321
148
281
23
415
..
37
44
249
103
170
198
0
27
103
31
30
..
Net
income
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
772
638
905
455
546
792
025
474
794
261
149
1 298
2 296
697
953
2 108
992
69
995
1 622
357
–286
615
358
913
52
233
414
685
717
..
170
448
67
508
..
400
40
724
336
77
108
542
235
194
207
–306
–539
–16
31
147
–227
Total
assets
143
58
93
53
37
31
32
42
42
36
25
42
25
39
18
21
19
10
13
16
22
10
10
8
4
11
7
6
3
409
635
897
964
743
031
425
132
142
301
510
519
339
740
185
357
197
717
122
128
390
671
599
409
723
494
813
755
128
3 996
..
4 755
8 970
4 632
5 663
..
5 710
6 287
6 130
..
2 778
2 475
3 052
2 339
2 771
3 460
4 330
5 412
1 499
1 354
2 246
1 613
Fixed
assets
99
22
73
35
29
28
24
27
24
22
21
28
13
18
11
13
14
7
10
11
6
7
8
5
2
9
4
4
2
218
710
738
039
265
236
317
339
080
861
724
334
873
580
494
964
063
773
591
569
787
899
706
524
762
914
936
170
572
1 673
..
3 690
5 673
2 961
3 190
..
4 210
3 891
3 350
..
1 552
1 038
2 487
1 982
1 717
2 708
3 091
1 457
703
671
1 538
1 393
Debt
50
10
50
13
14
6
12
14
7
3
13
7
13
3
6
4
6
2
1
6
4
4
1
7
2
1
Capital
expenditure
Access
lines
Mobile
subscribers
070 24 479 60 186 000 19 890 000
824 7 143
0 6 000 000
687 7 670 45 200 000 3 752 000
265 6 638 39 700 000 5 356 000
394 5 124 33 700 000 3 000 000
288 4 959 27 651 000 3 077 000
631 7 295 25 698 000
0
019 5 766 33 440 000 5 493 000
494 5 128 27 670 000 5 701 000
348 4 858 23 201 000 4 105 000
276 3 828
0
0
092 8 408 16 737 000 3 269 400
646 2 651 20 544 000 3 177 000
248 3 690 16 033 000 2 600 000
880 2 863 7 000 000 1 000 000
877 2 786 1 110 000 1 015 000
767 3 154 9 350 000 2 777 000
445 2 737
0 7 800 000
488 1 494 8 860 000 1 185 000
693
979 9 253 715 1 113 000
527 2 640
0
0
276 1 637 4 690 000 1 044 000
019 1 204 10 607 000
0
940
752 6 010 000 1 935 000
6
799
0 9 277 904
870 4 771 23 651 031
0
768
547 3 339 000
871 000
040
537 4 768 929
691 094
828
804
0 3 400 000
1 012
..
1 304
1 419
874
1 874
..
1 102
184
469
..
1 887
930
849
261
1 157
903
1 440
2 118
269
413
356
1 324
2 438
0
1 000 3 969 400
650 2 734 000
1 023
0
2 112
0
546 1 789 000
547 17 584 265
995 4 002 000
787
0
554 5 430 853
1 007 7 500 000
114
0
445
998 467
388 1 840 000
450 1 500 000
472 2 286 000
427 2 518 000
821
60 000
1 199
0
233 1 005 000
321
0
407 2 061 055
506
0
3 542
939
1 259
4 400
941
1 609
762
300
4 570
476
415
457
407
1 530
2 124
562
1 800
000
700
000
000
0
226
808
000
0
0
000
601
0
200
000
000
232
000
000
0
0
000
000
Employees
Personnel Mobile
costs
revenue
226
127
196
141
156
124
126
118
114
81
60
64
74
67
51
46
66
2
32
54
20
22
39
32
7
60
17
25
9
000
800
943
000
620
700
097
340
000
000
409
109
359
461
000
550
109
927
708
758
300
145
328
549
104
152
268
385
640
19 385
..
7 471
9 047
7 652
6 411
5 869
..
..
..
..
3 900
3 959
4 917
..
1 640
2 950
..
1 595
..
..
1 782
1 605
1 241
274
922
1 089
1 473
418
13
16
20
8
3
16
72
21
5
22
73
6
7
8
10
9
12
4
4
2
3
9
4
339
900
848
800
735
393
926
524
003
741
000
253
444
136
995
743
246
554
000
400
900
714
900
..
..
957
..
..
..
746
449
..
807
..
94
..
336
539
..
..
232
194
..
..
..
157
22
4
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
7
1
5
4
769
337
869
859
925
782
0
151
817
520
314
479
690
428
249
897
471
586
235
521
0
946
0
709
553
0
406
661
044
3 223
639
619
3 594
0
543
573
449
0
0
253
2 378
12
207
220
214
206
882
1 542
0
0
224
1 496
17
Introduction
Name of PTO
Name of PTO
Country
Sonera (Telecom Finland)
Telephone and Data Systems (TDS)
Telus
Excel Communications
Williams Communications
TeleGlobe
Citizens Utilities
Matav
360 Communications
SPT
Omnitel
Telewest
Other United States
Other Canada
Other United Kingdom
Other Japan mobile
Other OECD PTOs
Finland
United States
Canada
United States
United States
Canada
United States
Hungary
United States
Czech Republic
Italy
United Kingdom
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Japan
Top 25 PTOs by revenue
Top 50 PTOs by revenue
64 PTOs with revenue
over US$1 billion
All PTOs
Revenue
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
5
1
11
7
489
472
458
454
445
435
394
361
347
262
078
039
539
245
484
176
301
Net
Deprecia- Operating
interest
tion
income
paid
Net
income
234
302
387
24
67
78
187
218
185
260
221
547
1 423
1 271
380
0
437
344
–4
233
145
–56
203
16
397
274
270
–8
–414
–1 132
779
–714
0
419
509 988 94 124
584 673 106 001
85 783
98 360
17 678 27 104 38 797
19 327 31 149 44 125
603 939 109 151
638 685 112 662
99 833
99 186
Note: All data except for access lines, employees and mobile subscribers are given in US$ millions.
Company data may include data from operations in countries other than the one listed above.
Source:
OECD.
13
90
70
9
..
33
109
160
132
55
75
–360
979
350
347
0
139
Tax
43
74
29
10
121
112
56
88
..
–52
80
101
7
16
2
193
74
81
80
190
..
–82
..
–894
–156 –1 919
123
–181
–18
–947
0
0
133
–78
Total
assets
1
4
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
4
1
6
27
9
6
675
972
058
637
313
866
873
576
942
033
881
488
199
651
719
0
7 365
Fixed
assets
1 390
2 466
1 913
282
535
915
3 668
2 220
1 189
2 659
1 420
4 585
9 828
6 438
4 493
0
4 352
Debt
71 106
91 771
19 855 31 670 43 883 1 006 262 664 252 304 315 148 625 524 325 327 132 860 967 2 623 302
21 670 31 751 40 759 1 057 196 689 363 331 862 161 150 530 341 855 162 574 745 2 706 888
89 539
91 652
98 022
..
5
7
9
8
1
6
1
6
18
4
25
3
4
31
19
12
Personnel Mobile
costs
revenue
79 697
87 953
3
1
3
1
1
1 586 102
1 835 000
408 700
0
0
0
0
363 000
2 583 000
0
2 460 000
0
5 776 520
3 411 330
0
10 565 000
9 960 928
Employees
860 284 570 443 260 200 118 683 426 640 715 92 567 304 2 054 316
965 089 638 079 291 173 141 873 511 616 660 121 263 165 2 511 641
3
15
4
4
1
789 300
515 000
1 848 600
0
0
0
873 800
2 403 911
0
3 279 844
0
937 157
1 735 461
2 414 707
1 069 895
0
796 465
Mobile
subscribers
275
..
379
..
..
..
..
203
..
241
126
206
50
266
602
0
1 194
1
334
786
387
64
276
164
388
508
281
200
371
080
769
777
495
0
483
Access
lines
922
685
972
500
000
204
100
187
400
702
125
250
701
658
971
0
19 256
1
31
260
744
477
125
444
707
763
825
506
887
692
408
606
214
0
319
Capital
expenditure
1
1
3
11
665
933
251
0
0
0
0
258
347
0
078
0
000
..
..
176
..
Communications Outlook 1999
18
Table 1.2. Major public telecommunication operators in the OECD area with revenues greater than US$1 billion, 1997 (cont.)
OECD 1999
Introduction
way of contrast, there have been a number of mergers between leading PTOs in the United States – Nynex (with
Bell Atlantic), Pacific Telesis (with SBC). Moreover, in 1998 MCI became part of Worldcom (MCI – Worldcom),
while GTE is proposing to merge with Bell Atlantic and Ameritech with SBC.
Notwithstanding the wave of mergers, there are more PTOs in the United States with revenues greater than
US$1 billion than at any time in the past. In 1997 there were 21 PTOs from the United States on the list compared with 14 in 1992. To this list could be added the US subsidiary of Cable & Wireless, which surpassed the
US$1 billion revenue threshold in 1997. Accordingly, even though there is a trend towards consolidation among
the leading players in the United States, there is significant new market entry. This looks set to continue as
there are a further 28 PTOs in the United States with revenues greater than US$100 million. That being said,
most new entrants to date have been in the long-distance, Internet and cellular markets, reflecting the openness of these markets in the United States.
Significantly, the concentration of revenues among the leading PTOs is decreasing. In 1992 the top 25 PTOs
accounted for 92.4 per cent of the revenues of PTOs with revenue over US$1 billion. By 1995 the top 25 PTOs’
share of this total had dropped to 87.6 per cent, while in 1997 their share was down to 84.4 per cent. New
entrants, particularly in cellular mobile communication, are partly responsible for this growth in the overall size
of the market. In 1997 there were 25 PTOs with mobile revenues greater than US$1 billion (Table 1.3). NTT
(DoCoMo) is by far the largest cellular mobile communications company in the world, with revenues of
US$22.8 billion in 1997.
New entrants have clearly made the biggest impact in mobile communication, having captured 45 per cent
of the total market (Table 1.4). The definition for new entrants used in this table is for PTOs which have entered
public telecommunication markets after liberalisation. This includes, of course, some companies that have
been established for many years, such as MCI, and those parts of Cable & Wireless in markets where they are
not the incumbent operator. It also includes proportional revenues for incumbents which have entered new
markets that were previously off limits due to regulatory constraints. This would include, for example, PTOs in
Finland entering each other’s markets.
In terms of the overall telecommunication market, new entrants have gained a market share of just
under 19 per cent. As can be seen by their very small percentage of access lines relative to their share of mobile
subscribers, most of the revenues of new entrants are drawn from cellular mobile and long-distance services
rather than from local access services. In 1997, new entrants provided less than 0.9 per cent of the access lines
in OECD countries. This number was up from 0.3 per cent in 1995 but it is still primarily made up of new entrants
in the United Kingdom.
In 1997 the total assets of the telecommunication services sector in the OECD area surpassed one trillion
dollars. The value of fixed assets, of which telecommunication networks make up the vast bulk, was in the order
of US$700 million. Noteworthy developments include the increasing share of capital expenditures and employment provided by new entrants. At the same time, the initial costs of entering telecommunication markets are
considerable. This is evident in the overall loss made by new entrants in 1997. On the positive side, these
losses were lower in 1997 than in 1995. These losses are occurring notwithstanding the very large sums being
invested by new entrants to build digital cellular networks, long-distance facilities and, increasingly, local
access networks. That being said, incumbent PTOs still generate virtually all the net income produced by
the sector.
19
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 1.3. Major cellular mobile telecommunication operators in the OECD area, 1997
20
Name of PTO
Country
NTT (DoCoMo)
Other Japan mobile
TIM Telecom Italia Mobile
DDI Corp.
AT&T
GTE
SBC Communications
Bell Atlantic
SK Telecom
Airtouch
Bell South
Deutsche Telekom
Mannesmann (Mobilfunk, Arcor, Eurokom)
Vodafone
Telefonica
Ameritech
BT
France Telecom
Telstra
US West Inc
360 Communications
Omnitel
Cegetel (incl. SFR)
Telia
Nextel
Telephone and Data Systems (TDS)
Orange
Türk Telekom
Sonera (Telecom Finland)
Rogers Cantel
Optus
Telenor
BCE Mobile
KPN Telecom
Airtel Movil S.A.
Shinsegi Telecomm Ltd.
Telmex
Swisscom
Cable and Wireless
Veba (E-plus, Otelo)
Sprint
AllTEL
PTA
Tele Danmark
Netcom
Comcast Cellular
Portugal Telecom
Telecel S.A.
Belgacom
Western Wireless
Vanguard Cellular
Radiolinja (Finnet)
Century Telephone Enterprises
Sonofon
Panafon
Libertel
Bouygues Telecom
Telecom, New Zealand
Southern New England Telephone
Pannon
Europolitan Holdings AB
Telecom Eireann
Telus
BC-Tel
Iusacell
Japan
Japan
Italy
Japan
United States
United States
United States
United States
Korea
United States
United States
Germany
Germany
United Kingdom
Spain
United States
United Kingdom
France
Australia
United States
United States
Italy
France
Sweden
United States
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Finland
Canada
Australia
Norway
Canada
Netherlands
Spain
Korea
Mexico
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Germany
United States
United States
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
United States
Portugal
Portugal
Belgium
United States
United States
Finland
United States
Denmark
Greece
Netherlands
France
New Zealand
United States
Hungary
Sweden
Ireland
Canada
Canada
Mexico
Mobile subscribers
19
10
9
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
890
565
277
800
000
701
493
356
570
400
105
752
542
400
269
177
077
000
777
600
583
460
124
935
853
835
800
609
586
552
530
259
221
185
150
124
113
044
015
000
000
941
939
871
810
783
762
745
691
648
645
590
569
564
547
531
500
476
457
450
424
415
408
407
400
000
000
904
000
000
000
000
000
601
000
000
000
000
000
400
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
808
102
100
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
226
700
000
000
000
000
252
094
000
000
000
983
000
662
000
200
200
000
000
000
000
700
232
123
Revenue
(million US$)
78
11
5
9
51
23
24
30
2
3
20
38
3
4
16
15
25
26
11
15
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
3
7
7
6
13
14
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
099
176
553
738
319
260
856
194
378
594
561
957
916
044
141
998
597
851
866
235
347
078
809
083
739
472
495
159
489
896
860
608
873
931
751
333
663
775
588
723
874
263
734
624
529
445
136
501
244
380
375
222
902
175
440
..
257
246
022
171
294
053
458
990
235
Mobile revenue
(million US$)
22
11
5
7
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
769
176
553
586
337
817
151
859
378
594
520
869
223
044
479
690
782
925
471
428
347
078
542
709
739
933
1 496
573
665
896
882
619
873
1 235
751
333
521
946
897
577
249
543
639
406
274
445
449
501
661
380
375
222
308
175
440
195
257
207
214
171
294
220
251
206
235
Mobile as %
total revenue
29
100
100
78
8
12
13
9
100
100
12
7
82
100
15
11
7
11
12
9
100
100
85
12
100
63
100
18
45
100
47
17
100
16
100
100
7
14
7
80
2
17
17
9
52
100
14
100
16
100
100
100
34
100
100
..
100
9
11
100
100
11
17
10
100
OECD 1999
Introduction
Table 1.3. Major cellular mobile telecommunication operators in the OECD area, 1997 (cont.)
Name of PTO
Country
Telestet
Matav
Price Cellular
TPSA
Era GSM
Mobistar
Centenial Cellular
Pricellular
CommNet Cellular
MaxMobil
Aliant Communications
Radiomobil
Clearnet
Sasktel
Esat Digifone
Manitoba Tel
MT&T
P&T Luxembourg
Telecom Iceland (PTI)
Microcell Telecommunications Inc.
NBTel
NewTel
Island Tel
Greece
Hungary
United States
Poland
Poland
Belgium
United States
United States
United States
Austria
United States
Czech Republic
Canada
Canada
Ireland
Canada
Canada
Luxembourg
Iceland
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Total
Source:
Mobile subscribers
391
363
309
300
300
283
268
250
242
225
205
180
151
135
105
104
80
67
65
65
63
26
10
Revenue
(million US$)
Mobile revenue
(million US$)
Mobile as %
total revenue
337
000
606
000
000
400
600
441
975
000
915
000
912
623
000
826
171
208
746
667
617
414
000
345
1 361
185
2 594
..
149
151
181
150
98
208
94
71
501
83
448
390
306
144
19
319
239
52
345
258
185
253
..
148
151
181
150
98
85
94
71
..
83
52
35
..
27
19
34
14
5
100
19
100
10
..
99
100
100
100
100
41
100
100
..
100
12
9
..
19
100
11
6
9
162 505 745
539 663
118 868
22
OECD.
21
OECD 1999
Type of operator
Year
Revenue
Depreciation
Operating
income
Net
interest
paid
Tax
Net
income
Total
assets
Fixed
assets
Debt
Capital
expenditure
Access
lines*
Mobile
subscribers*
Employees*
Mobile
revenue
Incumbents (million US$)
Incumbents (million US$)
Incumbents (%)
Incumbents (%)
New entrants (million US$)
New entrants (million US$)
New entrants (%)
New entrants (%)
1997
1995
1997
1995
1997
1995
1997
1995
512 590
481 852
81.4
89.4
117 473
57 119
18.6
10.6
97 968
94 835
87.5
93.8
14 050
6 247
12.5
6.2
88 381
88 330
91.1
93.9
8 628
5 770
8.9
6.1
18 350
20 492
85.9
93.8
3 015
1 351
14.1
6.2
28 054
26 814
89.0
93.4
3 454
1 908
11.0
6.6
40 137
39 273
101.7
94.1
–662
2 449
–1.7
5.9
867 433
928 957
83.1
91.9
176 756
81 593
16.9
8.1
579 417
614 730
85.1
94.1
101 441
38 564
14.9
5.9
264 627
255 646
80.8
92.3
63 046
21 238
19.2
7.7
122 755
103 328
76.8
92.0
37 091
8 974
23.2
8.0
527 011 074
454 085 705
99.1
99.7
4 803 500
1 419 819
0.9
0.3
91 767 015
45 279 193
56.4
67.4
70 807 730
21 938 131
43.6
32.6
2 392 084
2 213 205
89.3
93.8
285 514
147 479
10.7
6.2
65 986
..
55.3
..
53 245
..
44.7
..
Note: * Data on access lines, mobile subscribers and employees (shown in bold) are stated in units.
Source:
OECD.
Communications Outlook 1999
22
Table 1.4. Main indicators for incumbent and new public telecommunication operators in the OECD
OECD 1999
Introduction
Figure 1.3. Proportions between incumbents and new entrants, 1997
Incumbents (%)
New entrants (%)
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
es
lin
tu
ce
ss
di
ita
Ac
en
xp
le
xe
Fi
ap
C
su
t
eb
as
d
as
al
To
t
et
N
D
se
ts
se
m
in
st
co
pa
Ta
x
e
re
te
in
O
N
pe
et
ra
D
tin
ep
g
re
in
ci
co
at
m
io
ue
en
ev
R
bs Mo
cr bi
i b le
er
s
Em
pl
oy
ee
M
s
ob
ile
re
ve
nu
e
80
re
80
ts
90
e1
90
id
100
n
100
1. Net income of incumbents is shown as 101.7%, as the net income of new entrants is negative.
Source: OECD.
Figure 1.4. Proportions between incumbents and new entrants, 1995
Incumbents (%)
New entrants (%)
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
as
se
d
xe
Fi
D
s
et
ss
la
To
ta
N
et
in
co
m
Ta
x
tp
re
s
te
N
et
in
in
ra
t
O
pe
D
OECD 1999
e
g
ep
re
in
ci
a
co
m
tio
ue
ev
en
R
Source: OECD.
su M
bs o
cr bil
ib e
er
s
Em
pl
oy
ee
s
70
ex C
pe ap
nd ita
itu l
re
Ac
ce
ss
lin
es
80
eb
t
80
ts
90
e
90
ai
d
100
n
100
23
Chapter 2
RECENT COMMUNICATION POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
A Decade of Change
The communication policy agenda has undergone significant change over the last few years. On
1 January 1998, a number of European Union member countries opened their telecommunication markets to
full infrastructure and service competition, lifting the last vestiges of monopoly by allowing competition for
public voice services. At the end of 1998, six OECD countries (the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Poland,
Portugal, Turkey) maintained monopolies in some market areas, although they have made commitments to
open their markets by specified dates. Following a decade of regulatory change, communication markets in
OECD countries seem to have become more harmonized. In 1988 monopoly structures were the norm for telecommunication service provision and competitive markets the exception. By 1998, this situation had been
reversed. The pace of change within the communications sector does not sit well with static policy settings.
OECD governments are facing new regulatory challenges due to the convergence between formerly distinct
communication markets. If the past decade has been characterised by structural divergences across countries,
the challenge for the coming years is to eliminate uneven treatment of different communication media to
obtain greater structural convergence. Those countries which reform regulatory structures to reflect convergence will be the first to capture the benefits of digitalisation. The emergence of cellular mobile communication
and the Internet are the results of a decade of regulatory change. Convergence raises challenges as difficult as
those posed by past telecommunication reforms, but promises even greater benefits for economic and social
development.
In addition to this upsurge in national telecommunication market liberalisation – indeed linked with it –
was the agreement to liberalise international trade in basic telecommunications. On 5 February 1998, the
agreement on basic telecommunications (the Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services)
negotiated in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) came into effect. This agreement by 72 WTO member governments (including all OECD governments) has led to schedules of binding services commitments to provide
specified levels of access to trade in each member’s market. A Reference Paper was agreed to, partly or in its
entirety, in the schedules of a number of countries which made significant commitments in terms of market
openness (see Box 2.1).
The process of building up a competitive telecommunication market will take time, and will to some extent
depend on the details of regulatory provisions being implemented and the pace of change in potential alternative technologies which could compete with fixed infrastructures. The shift towards more open markets is
also intertwined with developments in technological and service convergence, and the implications that this
will have for regulatory change. The issue of convergence has grown in importance because of the rapid changes
which are occurring as a result of rapid Internet development and diffusion and the development of electronic
commerce.
The ability of telecommunication operators to compete in long-distance markets is much easier than in the
local loop market because relatively less investment is required, because long-distance customers tend to be
more price sensitive, and because the technology is available to allow customers to change service providers
rapidly at little cost and even on a call-by-call basis. Competition in a number of OECD long-distance markets
is shown in Table 2.1. Having a local loop presence, however, can be important in rapidly obtaining market
OECD 1999
25
Communications Outlook 1999
Box 2.1.
Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services
Reference Paper
The following are some of regulatory principles for basic telecommunications which are contained in the
Reference Paper.
1.
Competitive safeguards
1.1. Prevention of anti-competitive practices in telecommunications
Appropriate measures shall be maintained for the purpose of preventing suppliers who, alone or together, are
a major supplier from engaging in or continuing anti-competitive practices.
1.2. Safeguards
The anti-competitive practices referred to above shall include in particular:
a) engaging in anti-competitive cross-subsidisation;
b) using information obtained from competitors with anti-competitive results; and
c) not making available to other services suppliers on a timely basis technical information about essential
facilities and commercially relevant information which are necessary for them to provide services.
2.
Interconnection
2.1. Interconnection to be ensured
Interconnection with a major supplier will be ensured at any technically feasible point in the network. Such
interconnection is provided:
a) under non-discriminatory terms, conditions (including technical standards and specifications) and rates
and of a quality no less favourable than that provided for its own like services or for like services of nonaffiliated service suppliers or for its subsidiaries or other affiliates;
b) in a timely fashion, on terms, conditions (including technical standards and specifications) and costoriented rates that are transparent, reasonable, having regard to economic feasibility, and sufficiently
unbundled so that the supplier need not pay for network components or facilities that it does not require
for the service to be provided; and
c) upon request, at points in addition to the network termination points offered to the majority of users, subject to charges that reflect the cost of construction of necessary additional facilities.
2.2. Public availability of the procedures for interconnection negotiations
The procedures applicable for interconnection to a major supplier will be made publicly available.
2.3. Transparency of interconnection arrangements
It is ensured that a major supplier will make publicly available either its interconnection agreements or a reference interconnection offer.
2.4. Interconnection: dispute settlement
A service supplier requesting interconnection with a major supplier will have recourse, either:
a) at any time; or
b) after a reasonable period of time which has been made publicly known to an independent domestic body,
which may be a regulatory body… to resolve disputes regarding appropriate terms, conditions and rates
for interconnection within a reasonable period of time…
26
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
Box 2.1.
3.
Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (cont.)
Reference Paper
Universal service
Any Member has the right to define the kind of universal service obligation it wishes to maintain. Such obligations will not be regarded as anti-competitive per se, provided they are administered in a transparent, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner and are not more burdensome than necessary for the kind of
universal service defined by the Member.
4.
Public availability of licensing criteria
Where a licence is required, the following will be made publicly available:
a) all the licensing criteria and the period of time normally required to reach a decision concerning an application for a licence; and
b) the terms and conditions of individual licences.
The reasons for the denial of a licence will be made known to the applicant upon request.
5.
Independent regulators
The regulatory body is separate from, and not accountable to, any supplier of basic telecommunications
services. The decisions of and the procedures used by regulators shall be impartial with respect to all market
participants.
6.
Allocation and use of scarce resources
Any procedures for the allocation and use of scarce resources, including frequencies, numbers and rights of
way, will be carried out in an objective, timely, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The current state of
allocated frequency bands will be made publicly available, but detailed identification of frequencies allocated for
specific government uses is not required.
Source: WTO.
Table 2.1.
National long distance market shares of new operators
Share of switched minutes – per cent
1984
Australia
Canada
Denmark
Finland
Japan1
Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
1985
1986
0
19.8
0
20.2
2
23.2
1987
3
4
28
1988
6
6
31.5
1989
10
7
35.1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
0
5
0.5
7
2
14
7.6
18
11.7
0
50
31.3
60
31.9
21
0
16.5
41.5
22
5
18.6
44.5
15.9
22.4
26.8
0
29.1
0
12
18
19
8
37.4
9
37.8
10.7
39.5
14
39.8
1.
Data for Japan are the combined share of NCCs inter prefecture traffic as measured by number of calls.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
1996
1997
17.9
0
59
35.7
9
0
10
21
47.8
5
59
40.6
8
18.8
25
17
24
48.6
27
Communications Outlook 1999
share in long-distance markets. It is for this reason that in Finland, which had a market structure characterised
by many independent local loop companies, the new entrants obtained a high share of switched longdistance minutes in just a few years. In four years, new operators in Finland had attained a higher share of the
national long-distance market share than new entrants in Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States
where long-distance competition has been allowed for over a decade
As is the case for national long-distance services, the international market share of new market entrants
has also expanded relatively quickly (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1). Thus, in Denmark, within two years new
entrants had attained a 25 per cent market share. In those markets which opened early to competition, such as
the United Kingdom and the United States, new entrants have obtained a share of over half the market.
It needs to be recalled that long-distance competition, both national and international, can be very lucrative for companies controlling the local loop because of the revenue stream they receive through interconnection charges. In addition, the growth in the market which long-distance competition generates is also shared by
incumbent carriers who, in most countries, participate in all market segments. Thus, what is viewed as a loss in
market share often translates into an overall gain in revenue and profitability for the incumbent public telecommunication operator (PTO).
The adoption of competitive market structures is even more apparent in the cellular mobile market
(Figure 2.2), where all OECD countries had already introduced duopolies or competitive markets by the beginning of 1998 (the exception is for analogue mobile services which are being phased out in many countries).
Many countries have issued three or more licences. Market shares for cellular mobile are also more evenly distributed between the companies owned by the dominant PSTN provider and new entrants. Already, the competition between existing market participants which has emerged in mobile telephony has shown important
benefits in terms of prices (see Chapter 7) and is rapidly providing national coverage by mobile cellular networks. However, too many countries seem to be content with limited competition in mobile, keeping the market closed by providing only three licences. Spectrum availability is not so much the issue here – the examples
of Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom testify to this, but rather an overly cautious approach to competition. This has led a number of European countries to restrict mobile entry to a limited (but as yet unspecified)
number of service providers. Regulators need to take a more aggressive stance to increase the number of service providers in the mobile market. This will not only benefit users, but can provide benefits through indirect
competition effects on the PSTN market.
Clearly, the challenge for regulators is to concentrate on stimulating competition in markets for local telecommunication voice services. To do this, many are concentrating on ensuring that appropriate regulatory safeguards are put into place as well as trying to ensure that alternative technologies are made available for local
competition. Cable television networks are often viewed by the regulators as the most promising alternative
technology to compete with PSTN-based local telephone service providers. In this context, the dominant control of cable television networks by incumbent PTOs in many European countries remains a problem.
The last edition of the Communications Outlook noted the increasing detail and complexity of regulations
which characterise the telecommunication sector. If anything, this problem has become worse, partly in reaction
to the powerful dominant position of the former monopoly operators, but also due to the complexity of fostering a pro-competitive climate in network-based industries.
At the international level, much progress has been made with the reform of the International Satellite
Organisations (Intelsat, Inmarsat and Eutelsat). Intelsat, for example, is moving toward partial privatisation to
form a new private entity. The reform process for the three organisations will take time to be fully implemented
given the need to reach consensus among a range of parties with quite different perspectives and interests.
Regulatory Safeguards
28
During the period leading up to 1998, many countries in Europe enacted new telecommunication legislation. This process continues. The Netherlands Parliament, for example, adopted in October 1998 a new act
replacing the interim legislation in place, and the Czech Republic is in the process of introducing a new act.
Countries such as Greece and Poland are implementing new laws and regulations in view of upcoming market
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
Table 2.2.
International market share of new market entrants
Share of minutes of international traffic – Per cent
1986
Australia
Canada1
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Korea
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
1987
1988
0
0
5.7
0.2
7
3.1
1.5
10.9
1989
1990
6.7
4.5
16.7
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
0
4.4
0
13
7
21
20
0
9
27.8
37
0
27
38
43
7.5
34
0
26.5
35.1
0
0
21.8
25
40
50.1
45
44
25
39
9
32.0
40.6
31.6
5
36
32
51
54.7
18.3
0
26.7
20.1
30.4
25.5
33.1
25.8
33.7
27.4
33.8
0
11
9
21.6
14
25.2
15
0
22.3
29.7
17.4
7.4
26.3
37.8
21
15
30.5
41
21
21
30.3
44.2
1.
Canada-US route only.
Source: OECD, Telegeography.
Figure 2.1.
Canada1
Australia
Japan
Mexico
New entrants’ international market share
Korea
Denmark
New Zealand
United States
Netherlands
Finland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Sweden
Outgoing MiTT (%)
60
Outgoing MiTT (%)
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1. Canada-US route only.
Source: OECD.
opening, while several other countries have made important modifications to relatively new legislation. Many
of the OECD countries which have liberalised are still in the process of implementing regulations and finetuning regulation to take into account unforeseen issues in their pro-competitive frameworks.
Many countries at the forefront of telecommunication liberalisation, and the European Union in its deliberations of liberalisation, have found it necessary to put in place a number of safeguards to ensure that new
entrants are able to compete effectively. The Reference Paper of the WTO (Box 2.1) reflected this early work
OECD 1999
29
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 2.2. Share of mobile subscribers by operator, 1997
Largest operator
Second operator
Other operators
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
0%
30
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
and there was wide consensus among WTO participants (all the OECD countries) of the necessity of implementing such safeguards. The exchange of information among regulators has facilitated the process of implementing
and agreeing on new regulations.
All OECD countries have now separated the function of telecommunication operator from that of regulation
and policy making. Most have also set up regulatory bodies independent of the government ministries responsible for policy. Several countries, for example, Korea and Japan, have preferred to maintain regulatory functions within ministries. In this context, many governments have tried to reduce their ownership of the dominant
PTO so that during the last several years the process of privatisation of incumbent PTOs has accelerated. There
are, nevertheless, seven OECD countries where the dominant carrier is wholly state-owned (Table 2.3). Many
countries, although they do intend to move to complete privatisation of their operators, do not view state ownership as conflicting with their goals for competition. This viewpoint may need to be reviewed; there have been
several cases over the last few years where the imperatives of enhancing competition were subordinated to
maximising revenue in share sales by deferring or not implementing regulatory decisions which might have
diminished the market value of the incumbent operator.
Interconnection
As OECD countries have shifted from monopoly market structures for the provision of telecommunication
services to a multi-carrier environment, it has become very evident that one of the key regulatory safeguards
required was for interconnection. The frameworks for interconnection are now viewed as a crucial factor in
ensuring market access and fair competition. In recent years there has been increasing recognition that interconnection is not only a national issue, but is also necessary at the international level for international market
access on a non-discriminatory basis. With the opening of international service markets to competition, increasing attention is being paid to the idea that interconnection concepts and frameworks could usefully replace
international accounting rate practices. In regional markets, such as Europe, this is already taking place. The
rapid developments in new communication technologies, the convergence in communication networks and
services, and the market developments in multimedia will increase the importance of interconnection policies,
but may make it more difficult to undertake cost allocation of different services using the same network
infrastructure.
A key component of interconnection arrangements are the charges companies pay, in particular to the
dominant carrier, since these prices will provide an important incentive to encourage effective competition in
the development and deployment of communication infrastructure and applications. Initially, the interconnect
charge had been left to commercial negotiation, but the reality of market power exercised by the incumbents,
with their well-established network and customer base in place, led many regulators to play an active role in
developing interconnection frameworks, requiring the dominant firm to publish its prices and requiring
approval of these prices (Table 2.4).
It has also been recognised that the incumbent has no incentive to facilitate the task of the new entrant.
With regard to interconnect prices, in a number of cases monopoly pricing practices have distorted pricing
structures, while accounting practices, including cost allocation, may be rudimentary or non-existent. Recognising that the determination of interconnection charge is linked to the cost accounting system used to allocate
the costs of the dominant telecommunication operator, regulators have been active in ensuring that cost
accounting is in place. Consensus is emerging on the use of long-run average incremental costs to determine
interconnect charges. As well, it is viewed as preferable that incremental costs should be based on forwardlooking costs rather than on historical costs.
Countries need to determine the degree to which transparency will be implemented with respect to interconnection frameworks. Most countries view commercial negotiations to be important in determining interconnect prices, but this may need to be balanced by some transparency in order to ensure full and fair
competition. Thus, in a number of cases, regulators require information on interconnect prices even when they
are negotiated between firms with no market power. Transparency also constrains carriers with market power
from setting interconnection charges which are too high or in such a way as to inhibit competition (e.g. by favouring preferred or associated service providers).
OECD 1999
31
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 2.3. Status of major telecommunication network operators (November 1998)
32
Operator(s)
Status
Control of PSTN
Australia
Telstra
Optus Communications
State-owned: 67%
Privately owned
Open competition
Austria
Post und Telekom Austria AG
100% state-owned through a holding
company (25% + 1 share expected
by end 1998)
Open competition
Belgium
Belgacom
State-owned 51%
Open competition
(strategic partnership with Ameritech,
Singapore Telecom, Tele Danmark
49%)
Canada
Stentor Members
Alternative long distance carriers
Privately owned
Privately owned
Open competition
Czech Republic
SPT Telecom
State-owned: 51%
Monopoly
Denmark
Tele Danmark
Privately owned
Open competition
Finland
Sonera Ltd.
Finnet Group
(45 local telephone companies)
State-owned
Privately owned
Open competition
France
France Telecom
State-owned: 62%
Open competition
Germany
Deutsche Telekom AG
State-owned: 61%
Open competition
Greece
OTE
State-owned: 65%
Monopoly
Hungary
Hungarian Telecommunication Co.
State-owned: 6.47%
Monopoly
Iceland
Telecom Iceland
State-owned. Corporatised
as of 1/1/97. No privatisation
before 2000.
Monopoly
Ireland
Telecom Eireann
State-owned 80% (KPN Netherlands
and Tele Danmark 20% with
an option for a further 15%)
Full competition began
on 1 December 1998.
Italy
Telecom Italia
State-owned: 5%
Open competition
Japan
Type I carriers1 NTT
Open competition
KDD
163 others
Type II carriers2
Minimum of 33.3% state-ownership
Presently 65% state-owned
Privately owned
Privately owned
Privately owned
Korea
Korea Telecom
State-owned: 71.2%
Limited competition
Luxembourg
P&T Administration
State-owned
Open competition
Mexico
Telefonos de Mexico
Privately owned
Open competition
Netherlands
KPN Telecom NV
State-owned: 43.8%
Monopoly
New Zealand
Telecom New Zealand
Clear Communications
Privately owned
Privately owned (25% owned
by Television New Zealand
– a state-owned enterprise)
Open competition
Norway
Telenor
State-owned
Open competition
Poland
Telekomunikacja Polska Spolka
Akcyjna (TPSA)
State-owned (privatisation
of 20-25 per cent shares late 1998)
Long distance and
International monopoly
Portugal
Telecom Portugal
State-owned: 25%
Monopoly
Spain
Telefónica Retevision
Privately owned State-owned: 30%
(fully privatised end 1998)
Open competition
Sweden
Telia
Tele2 (Netcom)
State-owned
Privately owned
Open competition
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
Table 2.3.
Status of major telecommunication network operators (November 1998) (cont.)
Operator(s)
Status
Switzerland
Swisscom
State-owned (currently 70%; the state Open competition
must retain majority share)
Turkey
Türk Telekomünikasyon
State-owned
Monopoly
United Kingdom
BT
Cable & Wireless Communications
Kingston Telecom, Cable
Telephony and others
Privately owned
Privately owned
Open competition
as from 1991
Ameritech
Bell Atlantic (including Nynex)
Bell South
SBC (including Pacific Telesis)
US West
GTE and others
Privately owned
Open competition.
AT&T
MCI-Worldcom
Sprint
Others
Privately owned
Open competition
United States
Local and inter-exchange
carriers
Long distance and
international exchange
carriers
Control of PSTN
Privately owned
1.
Type I carriers own and operate their own network infrastructures (facilities based carriers).
2.
Type II carriers generally lease network infrastructures from Type I carriers (non facilities-based carriers).
Source: OECD.
Numbering
Many countries, despite having made a decision on market opening several years ago, have been slow to
ensure that a numbering policy, including number portability, is in place. In this context, dialling parity has
become an important requirement to further competition since dial code access is one reason why customers
choose carriers. Countries such as France developed policies early on in the process and have set deadlines
for the implementation of various facets of the numbering framework including geographic portability. An
increasingly important requirement for number portability will be to include cellular mobile service numbers.
Universal service
Communications are an integral part of any community. For a range of reasons, both social and economic,
governments have expressed an interest in extending communication networks and services beyond the commercial level. The importance of such universal service obligations has been recognised by all OECD governments and most have taken concrete policy steps in order to ensure adequate provision of services. Coverage
and definitions of universal service may differ across countries, although in general the definitions would
include the provision of standard telephony services to unprofitable customers and/or geographic areas, as
well as public services provided at a loss to specific community groups, services to disadvantaged customers,
pay phones, etc. There has been general acceptance that competition and universal service are not incompatible but that, on the contrary, competition will help the process of attaining universal service at lower cost and
will, as well, assist in lowering the total cost of universal service provision. This contrasts with the arguments
put forward several years ago by opponents to competition, that universal service would suffer as a result of
competitive markets.
Despite market growth, diffusion of cellular mobile services and the increase in subscriptions by households to second telephone lines, there remain a large number of households across the OECD who do not subscribe to telephone service. In the context of its monitoring report on universal service in the European Union,
the European Commission has estimated that there were six million households without telephone service
in 1996. The United States has a similar number of households without telephone service. With the increased
OECD 1999
33
Interconnection frameworks
OECD 1999
Type of regulation
Publication of interconnection charges
Dispute settlement
Australia
PSTN originating and terminating access charges
are set either by commercial agreement,
by an access undertaking approved
by the regulator, or through arbitration.
No.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Austria
Commercial agreement.
There is a legal requirement for the regulatory
authority to publish interconnection rates.
The Telekom Control Commission
Belgium
Commercial negotiations.
Reference offers approved by regulatory authorities
must be published by providers with a strong
market position.
Provision for arbitration by an ‘‘Interconnection
Chamber’’.
Canada
Interconnect rates are approved by the CRTC.
Yes.
The CRTC requires all local exchange carriers
to interconnect with each other and with
all long-distance carriers and wireless service
providers. Within exchanges, the cost
of interconnection between local telephone
companies is to be shared equally. Originating
carriers are not required to compensate terminating
carriers for call termination expenses within
established local exchanges.
CRTC
Czech Rep.
Commercial agreement.
No.
Ministry of Finance serves as an arbitrator
for prices; The Ministry of Transport
and Communications-Czech Telecommunication
Office deals with technical and operational matters
at present.
Denmark
Commercial agreement.
Interconnect charges as well as agreements
are public.
National Telecom Agency Denmark
Finland
Commercial agreement.
Interconnection and access charges must be public. Ministry of Transport and Communications
France
Commercial agreement between operators.
Operators designated by the regulatory authority
must publish their interconnection rates
and technical specifications.
The regulatory authority (ART) arbitrates between
operators
Greece
PSTN monopoly.
To date only mobile interconnection charges exist
and these are published as part of the licences
of the parties.
The National Telecommunications Commission
Hungary
Charges for interconnection are set by the Minister
of Transport, Telecommunications and Water
Management in accordance with the Minister
of Finance.
No.
No provisions for arbitration.
Iceland
Operators free to conclude agreements outside
the Reference Interconnection offer.
A schedule of interconnection charges
to be published end 1998
The Post and Telecom Administration must act
as an arbitrator and if arbitration fails may have
to make a decision.
Communications Outlook 1999
34
Table 2.4.
OECD 1999
Table 2.4. Interconnection frameworks (cont.)
Publication of interconnection charges
Dispute settlement
Ireland
Commercial negotiation.
Available to all licensed operators terminating
on Telecom Eireann network.
Director of Telecommunication Regulation (ODTR)
Italy
Commercial negotiations.
Telecom Italia has to make a public offer.
The regulatory authority (Autorità per le garanzie
nelle Communicazioni)
Japan
Commercial negotiations, but require Ministerial
authorisation.
Designated carriers should provide interconnection
rates in advance and obtain prior Ministerial
authorisation (NTT’s local network is a ‘‘designated
facility’’).
Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications
Korea
Commercial agreement.
KT’s interconnection charges are public.
Korea Communications Commission
Luxembourg
Commercial agreement.
The regulator (ILT) needs to approve a Reference
Interconnect Offer put forward by the PTO.
The regulatory body (Institut Luxembourgeois
des télécommunications, ILT)
Mexico
Commercial agreement.
Interconnection tariffs applied by concessionaires
must be registered and become part of the Public
Telecommunications Registry.
SCT
Netherlands
Commercial agreement. Significant market player
needs approval from regulator for their offer.
Reference interconnection offer has
to be published.
The Independent Post and Telecommunication
Authority (OPTA)
New Zealand
Commercial agreement.
All interconnection agreements with Telecom NZ
All agreements have provision for independent
are required to be published and made publicly
arbitration. Parties have recourse to the court
available within 1 month of having been concluded. system to adjudicate breaches of competition law
Telecom NZ must provide similar services at similar
prices.
Norway
Commercial agreement.
Requirement to publish a Standard Interconnection
Reference Offer.
Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority
Portugal
Commercial negotiations which must comply
with cost orientation, non-discrimination
and transparency principles.
Interconnection charges must be made available
to ICP, General-Directorate for Trade
and Competition who may, upon request, disclose
them, except for elements considered strategic
to the companies involved.
Instituto des Comunicações de Portugal (ICP)
Spain
Commercial agreement.
Obligation to publish standard reference offer.
Regulatory authority
(Comisión del Mercado de las telecomunicaciones)
Sweden
Commercial agreement.
Yes and made available as a standard offer.
Regulatory authority (National Post and Telecom
Agency)
Switzerland
Commercial agreement.
Service providers with a dominant position
are required to provide interconnection for other
service providers without discrimination in line
with a transparent, cost-based policy. Other service
providers must have transparent pricing.
Communications Commission.
Turkey
There is an interconnect agreement between
the PSTN operator and GSM operators.
No.
Ministry of Communication and Competition
Authority.
35
Recent Communication Policy Developments
Type of regulation
Type of regulation
Publication of interconnection charges
Dispute settlement
United Kingdom
Commercial agreement. Non-incumbent PTOs
are free to discriminate in interconnect charges.
Only for BT. BT is required to charge all those who
have the right to interconnect on the same basis.
OFTEL
United States
Long-distance and international traffic
is terminated and originated at tariffed access
charge rates filed with the FCC. These rates are set
in most cases under a price-cap regime. Rates
for local service interconnection are set through
commercial negotiation under pricing guidelines
established by state commissions and in most
cases are set at total element long-run incremental
cost rates.
Interstate rates (access charges) are tariffed
by the FCC under a price cap formula. Intrastate
rates are set by the state commission under price
caps or rate-of-return-regulation.
State Public Utility commissions and/or FCC
Source:
OECD.
Communications Outlook 1999
36
Table 2.4. Interconnection frameworks (cont.)
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
dependence of economic activity on communication infrastructures and services, it is important to ensure that
all segments of society have access to telecommunication and online information services. Regulators require
further analysis of the reasons why some households do not subscribe to telecommunication services and
developments in this area need to be monitored.
Several OECD countries have begun to review their concepts of universal service to see whether they
should be adjusted to take into account the development of the Internet and online information services.
Australia, for example, has initiated a review to determine whether digital data capability should be incorporated into universal service obligations. The United States, in response to the requirements of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which identifies schools, libraries and rural medical institutions as areas for support,
provides discounts to assist these institutions to connect to the “Information Superhighway”.
Foreign ownership
Limitations on foreign ownership, which were viewed as important in the WTO negotiations, have declined
considerably with market liberalisation and in response to the WTO agreement on basic telecommunications
(Table 2.5). Many countries do, however, maintain a “golden share” or similar provision, which is usually aimed
at ensuring that the dominant telecommunication operator does not come under the control of a single investor
(domestic or foreign).
Regulation and the Internet
Compared to several years ago, an increasing number of OECD countries seem to be integrating Internetbased services within their regulatory frameworks. In this context, a number of countries have stated that
Internet telephony would be subject to some form of regulation or control (Table 2.6). This trend should be a
cause of concern since, where opportunities to forebear from regulation occur, they should be seized because
one of the objectives of regulators is, taking into account the appropriate social objectives, to ensure the development of sustainable competition.
Future Regulatory Challenges
As noted above, one of the key regulatory challenges over the next few years will be to ensure the development of effective local competition. At the same time the process of technological and service conversion is
complicating this process. This is because, on the one hand, there is a need to provide incentives for the development of new broadband infrastructures both by the incumbent dominant operator and by new entrants
while, on the other hand, the dominant operators’ market power could increase through the development
of broadband infrastructures and provision of broadband services. This will be one of the challenges of
convergence.
In December 1997 the European Union released its Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications,
Media and Information Technology Sectors, and the Implications for Regulation: Towards an Information Society Approach aimed
at consulting with EU Members on appropriate policies for the future. In addition, a number of other OECD
countries have started the process of examining how to deal with convergence issues in the context of existing
telecommunication and broadcasting policies and regulations. Many have set up domestic bodies to examine
the issue of convergence and determine the implications for regulation and regulatory structures. The rapid
rate of change in technology and in the emergence and diffusion of new services implies that there is need for
speed in determining and applying appropriate policies. The widening gap in relative market openness
between telecommunication and broadcasting requires serious policy consideration.
The deployment of International Mobile Telecommunications systems which will determine the next generation of mobile communications, while several years away, will also need to be examined in light of their regulatory implications for domestic, as well as international, services.
These issues will also pose challenges for future rounds of trade negotiations which may begin before the
year 2000 and could build on the existing WTO agreement on basic telecommunications.
OECD 1999
37
OECD 1999
Australia
Total foreign ownership in Telstra’s equity limited to 11.6667 per cent with individual foreign ownership restricted to 1.6667 per cent.
Austria
The law requires the whole PTA organisation to be brought to the stock market by year end 1999.
Belgium
Government participation and voting rates in Belgacom are freely determined under legislative power as is presently the case under the law of 21.03.1991
on the reform of government-owned enterprises.
Canada
A maximum of 20 per cent of voting shares in any facilities-based carrier. At least 80 per cent of the board of directors of facilities-based carriers must be
Canadian. Investor companies in such carriers are treated as Canadian if at least 66 2/3 per cent of voting shares are held by Canadians. There are no limits
on non-voting shares.
Czech Rep.
Strategic partner, Telsource (PTT Netherlands/Swiss Telecom plus AT&T management agreement) owns 27 per cent of SPT. Local network operators in special
determined areas can have a maximum of 34 per cent foreign ownership. Foreign participants in mobile operators own 49 per cent of shares.
Denmark
No foreign ownership restrictions.
Finland
No foreign ownership restrictions.
France
There is a 20 per cent limitations on direct foreign investment (for companies outside of the European Economic Area) for the mobile communications sector.
Germany
No foreign ownership restrictions.
Greece
PTO is a joint-stock company owned 92.4 per cent by the state.
Hungary
Concession agreements may define a maximum share but the Minister can grant an exemption.
Iceland
Operator is a joint-stock company under state ownership.
Ireland
The Telecommunications Bill provides that the shareholding of the State must not be reduced below a majority of the issued share capital.
Italy
Government has a ‘‘golden share’’ of incumbent.
Japan
NTT Act stipulates one-third ownership by government.
Korea
The limit of aggregate foreign ownership for facilities-based service providers is 33 per cent including KT from September 1998.). There is no individual
ownership limit in facilities-based service providers, except KT which is limited to 15 per cent.
Luxembourg
No foreign ownership restrictions.
Mexico
Up to 49 per cent foreign ownership allowed except for cellular telephony services where permission is required from the Commission of Foreign Investment
for a greater level of foreign participation.
Netherlands
No foreign ownership restrictions.
New Zealand
No single operator is permitted to own more than 49.9 per cent of shares of Telecom New Zealand and government permission required for any single
investor wishing to own more than 10 per cent of Telecom NZ. No restrictions on other operators.
Norway
The PTO is a limited company in which the state must own shares. A change in ownership requires approval by Parliament.
Poland
Foreign ownership restriction for a licence providing basic public telephony and data and value-added services with the use of a fixed link public
telecommunications network covering more than one dial code zone, or with the use of a cellular radio. Licence only awarded if foreign shareholding is not
more than 49 per cent of the total share capital. Domestic public services entirely open to foreign investors. In mobile cellular networks Polish capital has
to account for 51 per cent.
Communications Outlook 1999
38
Table 2.5. Foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications
OECD 1999
Table 2.5. Foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications (cont.)
Portugal
No foreign ownership restrictions.
Spain
Preliminary administrative authorisation required when any individual or corporation, whether national or foreign, is about to obtain control over 10 per cent
or more of Telefónica equity.
Sweden
No foreign ownership restrictions.
Switzerland
The Federal Government must retain a majority shareholding in Swisscom. Otherwise, no foreign ownership restrictions.
Turkey
After the monopoly has ended in 2005 new licences will require not less than 51 per cent equity by Turkish citizens.
United Kingdom
No foreign ownership restrictions, but the government has power to block acquisition of more than 15 per cent of the two largest companies (BT and Cable
& Wireless).
United States
Twenty per cent of direct capital stock of a common carrier radio licensee may be foreign-owned and up to 25 per cent in the equity of a holding company
which owns or controls a corporation with a radio licence. This level may be exceeded if the FCC determines that such ownership is in the public interest.
Wireline common carriers are not subject to these restrictions.
Source:
OECD.
Recent Communication Policy Developments
39
Australia
Treatment of Internet telephony
Likely that any provider would be considered a ‘‘carriage service provider’’ and as such would be subject to the standard carriage service provider rules.
Austria
Internet telephony is not covered by legal provisions for public voice telephony service and any operator can offer such a service.
Belgium
Such services are not considered voice telephony and may therefore be operated freely subject to declaration.
Canada
The CRTC determined that most Internet service providers are not facilities-based telecommunications carriers and consequently they are not regulated.
If an ISP should wish to become a facilities-based carrier then it would be subject to the same conditions and obligations as other facilities-based carriers.
Czech Republic
This issue is under examination. No permit has been given.
Denmark
No regulations.
Finland
No restrictions as long as voice telephony services do not form a significant portion of Internet services.
France
French law defines telephone service provided to the public in a way which is independent of the technology used. The provider of public telephone service
is thus subject to the same rules whether using Internet or any other platform.
Germany
Internet telephony is not considered as voice telephony falling under the licensed sector. There are no restrictions placed on Internet Service Providers under
the Telecommunications Act.
Greece
Transmission of voice through the Internet is considered as liberalised to the extent that it does not constitute voice telephony as defined in the existing
legislation.
Hungary
The Hungarian Communications Authority (CAH) has decided that real-time voice transmission cannot be provided by Internet. However, the issue is under
study and a national recommendation is expected in the future.
Iceland
OECD 1999
Ireland
The EU Commission, in early 1998, indicated its opinion that voice telephony services over the Internet did not constitute voice telephony as defined in EU
Regulations. Ireland considers applications on a case-by-case basis. To date, all Internet services have been treated as liberalised services and licensed
accordingly.
Italy
No specific regulations.
Japan
Telecommunication carriers that provide international Internet telephony are required to submit a report on the volume of traffic. Internet telephony services
are defined as ‘‘telecommunications services to convert sound into Internet protocol packets and use a packet switching system to transmit them’’.
Korea
Long distance and international telephone services through the Internet are classified as resale. Resale and Internet phone services only need to submit
business proposals, service provision contracts and user protection plans to the Ministry and register to provide resale and Internet phone services.
Luxembourg
Internet telephony is treated in same way as PSTN telephone services.
Mexico
Internet service providers are considered value added services. Value added services cannot provide telephony services to the public.
Netherlands
Notwithstanding the fact that everyone is allowed to offer public voice telephony services, the new Telecommunications Act does set out certain rules
concerning the offering of public voice telephony. However these rules do not apply because telephony provided over the Internet is, in line
with a communcation of the European Commission, not regarded as public voice telephony in the context of the regulation. Therefore there are no other rules
applicable than that for public telecommunication services in general (obligation to register and to facilitate legal tapping and compliance with privacy
regulation).
New Zealand
Such services are not defined. Operators of international voice telephony services provided over the Internet, interconnected to the PSTN at both ends,
are required to be registered under the Telecommunications (International Services) Regulations 1994.
Norway
National and international voice telephony services provided over the Internet will be defined and treated as a public telephony services as long
as it is comparable to PSTN in quality.
Communications Outlook 1999
40
Table 2.6.
OECD 1999
Table 2.6. Treatment of Internet telephony (cont.)
Poland
Portugal
Voice telephony services over the Internet provided by entities other than Portugal Telecom are forbidden. Voice telephony services must be provided
exclusively by Portugal Telecom until 1 January 2000.
Spain
No restrictions.
Sweden
Internet telephony would be treated as a public telephony service if the activity is of a considerable extent with regards to the area covered, the number
of users or other comparable circumstances.
Switzerland
Voice telephony over the Internet is regarded as a telecommunication service equivalent to data transmission and not to telephony as some of the criteria
for telephony are not yet fulfilled (real-time transmission, quality, universal access). This explains why it is subject to telecommunication legislation.
Thus, it is not subjet to the conditions of universal service provision (free emergency calls, telephone directory, quality listing in a criteria, etc.).
Turkey
Voice services are not permitted over the Internet.
United Kingdom
It is likely that Internet telephony would be treated as a form of resale.
United States
There are no restrictions on the provision of voice or other services over the Internet.
Source:
OECD.
Recent Communication Policy Developments
41
Communications Outlook 1999
Electronic commerce
OECD countries have identified electronic commerce as one of their key priority areas for the future. The
success of electronic commerce will, to a large extent, depend on users and service providers having access to
electronic commerce without network delay, without unnecessary restrictions on access and at prices which
encourage network usage. The underlying infrastructure, its interoperability, its costs and the subsequent
prices charged to network-based services and network users are important in this respect.
The infrastructure requirements for electronic commerce are changing rapidly as electronic commerce
applications develop and begin to diffuse. Growth in electronic commerce demand, linked with rapid changes
in the structural characteristics of demand for communication services and infrastructures, has significant implications for the future supply of communication infrastructures, the usage patterns of communication networks
and their development. Existing networks were engineered for quite different demand structures and usage
patterns. Obstacles to effectively meeting demand requirements due to inadequate network infrastructures,
access and use conditions, and terminal equipment, will create disincentives to the growth of many of the new
types of electronic commerce services being offered. Policy makers must ensure that there are no obstacles to
supply which could constrain effective demand and hinder business and residential customers in their migration to these more advanced electronic commerce services which may provide users and suppliers with more
value added than is the case with existing electronic commerce services.
Like Internet traffic, most electronic commerce traffic is likely to be based on store and forward data messages, with varying capacity demands and different traffic distribution patterns. This will rapidly change the
pattern of usage and occupation time of network circuits. For example, in the United States, Pacific Bell estimates that the average customer uses the telephone for voice traffic for 22 minutes per day compared to
62 originating minutes for Internet per day.
The demand for Internet services has had significant implications for infrastructure deployment. It also
provides an important example of how, where demand is buoyant and investment opportunities unrestricted
by regulation, technologies can rapidly evolve and diffuse and markets grow. Internet deployment in the
United States has led to over 40 major backbone networks, over 4 500 Internet Service Providers, and
23 per cent of households connected to the Internet. It is predicted that the Internet access market in the
United States will increase from US$6 billion in 1997 to US$38 billion by 2002. Although bandwidth is growing,
it cannot always keep up with demand growth. A number of large customers are now demanding OC-3 lines
(155 Mbps capacity) and OC-12 lines (622 Mbps capacity). At the same time, however, while the question of
bandwidth shortage is being discussed in the United States, it has been estimated that about 60 per cent of
installed fibre optic networks are not being used. This unlit fibre is reportedly being held in reserve by the
large telecommunication operators, and therefore tends to slow down capacity availability for Internet usage
and electronic commerce applications.
Congestion has also been raised as a technical and policy problem. Investment in broadband capacity by
network service providers is not necessarily the only solution to network congestion. Unless traffic management solutions are optimised increased capacity and increased flow-through of traffic may further stimulate
demand (in terms of numbers of customers and log-on time), leading to further congestion. Congestion in this
sense is a dynamic issue. The local loop is one particular area where congestion can occur, so service providers
need to be assured that local access networks can meet peak traffic loads. Congestion can also occur at the customer level when trying to access Internet Service Providers.
42
The substitutability between communication networks, as well as features of complementarity, implies a
policy which allows bandwidth expansion and technological innovation in infrastructures to take place in a competitive environment which is commercially driven. These requirements imply less policy influence and
attempts at direction with respect to which infrastructures should be available for new electronic commerce
applications, and more emphasis on ensuring that obstacles to demand are eliminated, that diffusion of terminal equipment and services can take place rapidly, and that convergence is facilitated. Only in an environment
where electronic commerce application providers can select the most competitive network providers – but also
the best service providers – will there be sufficient incentive to undertake the substantial investment required
to upgrade existing networks and provide high-speed local loops.
OECD 1999
Recent Communication Policy Developments
If governments place high priority on the development and diffusion of electronic commerce and the creation of a large customer base, then the major challenge they face is to stop viewing the different communication network infrastructures as different sectors or markets. As far as electronic commerce and the Internet are
concerned, an increasing number of OECD countries are beginning to debate whether policy needs to deal with
communication infrastructures as part of a single communication sector where there specific relationship exists
between services and networks.
Reformulation of the specific regulations applicable to broadcasting networks and to telephone and data
networks is difficult, but necessary. The economic inefficiencies which often occur with limited competition in
infrastructure can retard the growth of electronic commerce applications and limit the economic and social benefits which they can provide. Regulators ought therefore to review and examine how the process of market
restructuring already underway in telecommunications can be extended and thus allow the development and
integration of generic networks that can provide and support all types of services, including entertainment,
telephony and electronic commerce.
The process of technological and service convergence within the telecommunications, information technology, and broadcasting and multimedia industries, poses a number of significant regulatory challenges. The
speed of technological and market change is one element of this challenge because regulatory change moves
at a slower pace than market requirements. Other complications arise from the fact that the “old” regulatory
issues have not all been resolved given the continued dominance of incumbent public telecommunication
operators in many markets, and that the transformation to competitive telecommunication markets is relatively
recent in many cases. Thus, “new” issues arising from convergence are likely to continue to coexist with current
issues.
43
OECD 1999
Chapter 3
TELECOMMUNICATION MARKET SIZE
The public telecommunication services market in the OECD area produced revenues of US$623 billion
in 1997 (Table 3.1). This compares to US$585 billion in 1996 and US$539 billion in 1995. In 1997 the leading
PTOs with headquarters in OECD countries had revenues of US$638 billion, but this included income from outside the OECD area and some overlap arising from investment between companies.
Growth in the telecommunication market continues to be buoyant in all OECD countries, with an average
annual growth rate of 7 per cent between 1992 and 1997. This is the fastest rate of growth over a five-year period
since 1980. The period from 1987 to 1992 experienced a more modest rate of growth of a little over 4 per cent
per annum. Telecommunication revenue, measured in US dollars, did not grow as much in 1997 as in previous
years, largely due to currency fluctuations. Every OECD country recorded growth in their market in terms of
their local currency. However, the strengthening of the US currency relative to those of most other countries
in 1997 led to lower market size for 13 countries when measured in dollars. As can be seen from Figure 3.1, this
affected some of the largest markets in the OECD, including France, Germany, Japan and Korea. That being
said, preliminary data for 1998 continues to show growth in the market when measured in local currency.
Market Drivers
Several important factors have played a part in accelerating growth in telecommunication markets,
including liberalisation of markets and network growth. For one group of countries, which includes the
Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, the dramatic improvement in the performance of their PTOs, not only in
terms of revenue increases, is clearly linked to their overall transition to market-based economies. Included in
the performance of these countries, and others such as Korea and Turkey, is the growth in revenue related to
significant increases in the size of their networks. Moreover, the main driver of increasing revenues,
between 1992 and 1997, has been greater liberalisation in the OECD area than over the preceding five years.
Undoubtedly, the main impact of liberalisation was first felt in the cellular mobile communication market.
Prior to 1992 all OECD countries had monopolies in the provision of cellular mobile communication, with the
exception of six countries who had duopolies. Since 1992 all OECD countries, with the exception of three, have
introduced greater competition in mobile communication markets, with up to six infrastructure providers competing in some areas. Additional operators in the three exceptions, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland, were
licensed to commence service in 1998. In retrospect, prior to 1992, the licensed mobile communication providers were extremely lethargic, with service aimed at a very small segment of today’s market. One of the main
benefits of greater competition has been innovation in the pricing of service which has turned mobile communication into a mass market. One in every five dollars now made by PTOs comes from mobile communication,
with the vast bulk coming from cellular mobile communication.
Mobile communication
At the beginning of 1992 there were less than 15 million users of cellular mobile communication service in
OECD countries. By the end of 1997 there were more than 170 million cellular users, creating a new revenue
stream of US$125 billion (Table 3.2, Figure 3.2). As mobile communication now represents 20 per cent of the
OECD 1999
45
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 3.1. Trends in telecommunication revenue,
investment and access paths, 1980-97
Revenue (left scale)
Access lines (right scale)
Investment (left scale)
Access paths (right scale)1
Revenue and investment (current billion US$)
800
Access paths (millions)
800
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1. Telecommunication access paths include the total of fixed access lines and cellular mobile subscribers.
Source: OECD.
telecommunication market, this is an important consideration in terms of traditional telecommunication
indicators. For example, a consideration of revenue per fixed access line needs to take into account the additional calling opportunities provided by mobile communication. The easiest way to visualise this is to look at
the combination of fixed access lines and mobile subscriptions presented in Figure 3.1. Accordingly, the revenue per fixed access line indicator, in Table 3.3, now includes a significant portion of revenue from mobile communication. Much of this mobile revenue is initiated from the fixed network. This is because the number of
fixed access lines still outnumbers mobile subscriptions by more than three to one.
In the United Kingdom, calls from fixed to mobile networks generated US$1.2 billion for fixed network
infrastructure providers between March 1996 and March 1997. Around 90 per cent of this revenue was from calls
from the fixed network to mobile users. The other 10 per cent derives from interconnection revenues for calls
passing from mobile networks to the fixed network. Although, a decade ago, some monopoly PTOs regarded
mobile communication as a threat to fixed network revenues, it has become a boon.
46
In Sweden, Telia’s combined revenue generated by traffic from fixed to mobile networks and the revenue
from mobile telephony was only 5 per cent less than the combined revenue from national and international
traffic. In some cases PTOs find that their revenue bases are being transformed by mobile communication. For
example, Sonera (formerly Telecom Finland) had a monopoly on long-distance and international service
until 1994, and provided around 30 per cent of local access lines in Finland. By 1997 mobile revenue had grown
to represent 45 per cent of the company’s revenue. Accordingly, revenue per access line and per capita are
increasing rapidly in countries with very strong mobile communication markets (Figures 3.3 and 3.4).
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Figure 3.2. Mobile telecommunication revenue in OECD countries, 1997
Million US$ (logarithmic scale)
100 000
Million US$ (logarithmic scale)
100 000
10 000
10 000
1 000
1 000
1
ce
re
Ko
an
Fr
Ita
an
do
m
er
ng
Ki
d
te
G
n
at
pa
St
Ja
d
te
ni
U
ni
U
a
Sp
Au ain
st
ra
l
C ia
N an
et
ad
he
a
rla
n
Sw ds
ed
Po en
Sw rtug
itz al
er
la
n
Fi d
nl
an
d
Au
st
ria
N
or
w
a
G y
re
e
H ce
un
ga
Be ry
lg
iu
m
M
ex
D ico
en
m
ar
Tu k
rk
e
C
ze
Ir y
ch ela
n
R
d
N epu
ew
bl
Ze ic
al
an
Ic d
el
an
d
1
ly
10
y
10
m
100
es
100
Source: OECD.
Generally, revenue per cellular mobile subscriber, in contrast to revenue per access line, has been falling
over recent years (Table 3.4). In 1995 average revenue per cellular mobile subscriber was US$804, but by 1997
it had fallen to US$708. The reason for this is largely due to different patterns of usage and pricing structures
as cellular mobile communication becomes a mass market. The initial users of cellular mobile services generated more minutes per user than the did average user in 1997. Since 1992, however, an increasing range of
attractive tariff packages have been introduced, often providing a certain amount of calling time with the fixed
monthly subscription. Other packages for “low users” generally mean that users pay a lower fixed fee but higher
call charges during periods of peak pricing. This is less expensive for users who value the convenience or security of a cellular telephone but who do not need to make many calls.
Competition has also spurred growth in traditional markets as liberalisation for PSTN services has
expanded access across the OECD. Prior to the 1990s only three countries (Japan, the United Kingdom and the
United States), had experienced competition in their fixed markets for any length of time. In the first half of
the 1990s these countries were joined by Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden. That being
said, in practice, competition was still largely limited to certain market segments, such as long-distance and
international services, and duopolies were in place in some of these countries. Indeed, the frameworks put in
place in those countries that pioneered competition prior to 1990 did little to encourage competition across
the whole telecommunication market. As a result, a great deal of growth was stimulated in market segments
subject to competition. On the other hand, performance in other market segments, particularly in countries
with mature telecommunication networks, was influenced more by general fluctuations in the economy.
Post 1992, the most significant development has been the opening of local access markets, largely commencing in the United Kingdom with the end of the duopoly. Since that time, new market entrants have added
over three million access lines in the United Kingdom to provide local service in competition with BT. That
being said, it is still too early to determine the overall revenue impact of competition in a mature local market.
Clearly, one benefit for consumers in the United Kingdom, apart from greater choice and improved services,
OECD 1999
47
48
te
d
Sw Sta
itz tes
er
D land
en
m
ar
Ja k
pa
N n
or
w
Sw ay
ed
A e
Lu ust n
xe ral
N mb ia
e
U w Z our
ni
te eal g
d
a
Ki nd
ng
do
Ire m
la
Fi nd
nl
an
O d
EC
C D
an
ad
Ic a
el
G an
d
e
N rm
et
he any
rla
nd
Fr s
an
Po ce
rtu
g
Au al
st
ria
Ita
Be ly
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
G n
re
H ece
un
ga
C
ry
ze
ch Ko
R rea
ep
ub
M lic
ex
ic
Po o
la
n
Tu d
rk
ey
ni
U
Ja
Au pan
Sw str
a
U itze lia
ni
te rla
d nd
St
at
e
Ire s
l
a
D
en nd
m
a
N No rk
ew rw
Ze ay
al
an
O d
EC
Sw D
ed
U
ni Po en
te
r
d tug
K
a
Lu ing l
xe do
m m
bo
u
Fi rg
nl
an
Au d
st
Ic ria
e
G lan
er d
m
an
y
Ita
C ly
N an
et
he ada
rla
nd
s
Sp
a
Be in
lg
iu
Fr m
an
M ce
ex
H ico
un
ga
C
ze G ry
ch re
R ece
ep
ub
li
Ko c
re
Po a
la
n
Tu d
rk
ey
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 3.3. Public telecommunication revenue per access line, 1987 and 1997
US$
2 000
1987
1987
1997
US$
2 000
1 800
1 800
1 600
1 600
1 400
1 400
1 200
1 200
1 000
1 000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
Source: OECD.
Figure 3.4. Public telecommunication revenue per capita, 1987 and 1997
US$
1 000
1997
US$
1 000
900
900
800
800
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Figure 3.5. Cellular mobile telecommunication revenue per cellular mobile subscriber,
1995 and 1997
US$
2 500
1995
1997
US$
2 500
2 000
2 000
1 500
1 500
1 000
1 000
500
0
H
un
ga
ry
Sw Jap
a
itz
er n
la
n
G d
re
N
ec
et
he
e
rla
nd
Fr s
an
U
ce
G
ni
te erm
d
a
Ki ny
ng
do
m
Au
st
ria
Sp
ai
Ire n
la
n
C
ze
O d
ch EC
D
R
ep
ub
Be lic
lg
iu
Po m
U
r
ni
tu
te
ga
d
St l
at
es
Ita
Au ly
st
ra
lia
Ko
r
C ea
an
ad
N No a
ew rw
Ze ay
al
an
M d
ex
ic
Ic o
el
an
Sw d
ed
e
Fi n
nl
D and
en
m
ar
Tu k
rk
ey
0
500
Source: OECD.
has been lower prices. Between 1992 and 1997, revenue from local calls increased by only 0.7 per cent per
annum, while minutes of local call traffic increased by 7.7 per cent per annum. Accordingly, it is new services
such as mobile communication which have provided much of the revenue growth in the United Kingdom
between 1992 and 1997. In this regard, it is interesting to consider the impact of the Internet.
Internet
Besides mobile communication, the Internet is undoubtedly the leading potential revenue driver to have
emerged between 1992 and 1997. Prior to the Internet, the various online information services operated by
PTOs, such as teletext services, had, in most cases, negative revenue impacts. As with mobile communication,
much of the early analysis of the impact of the Internet focused on a supposed threat to PSTN revenues from
services such as Internet telephony. This analysis missed the mark in that the primary impact of the Internet,
as with mobile communication, has been to increase the size of the telecommunication market. The Internet
has done this in two ways: first, by creating a new service called Internet access; and, second, by stimulating
sales of traditional and new access services.
Internet access, as a new service, was pioneered by Internet Service Providers. As recently as the beginning
of 1995 there were no PTOs providing dial-up Internet access. Subsequently, the largest independent ISPs, with
very few exceptions, have all been purchased by telecommunication carriers. A list of ISPs bought by licensed
telecommunication carriers would be extensive. Some examples suffice to make the point. In the United States,
GTE took over BBN and MCI-Worldcom purchased UUnet. In Europe, EUnet was taken over by Qwest and Demon
Internet was bought by Scottish Telecom, while France Telecom bought a majority interest in Oléane Internet. The
largest exception is PSInet, an independent ISP which had revenues of $122 million in 1997. That being said, the
company’s wholly owned subsidiary, PSINet Telecom Limited, has received a licence from the FCC to provide
facilities-based telecommunications services. The company will therefore be listed as a PTO in the next
Communications Outlook. At the same time, by offering Internet access as a service, telecommunication carriers such
as AT&T now number among the largest ISPs. Launched in February 1996, AT&T WorldNet signed up its
OECD 1999
49
Communications Outlook 1999
one-millionth Internet access customer in the fourth quarter of 1997. In addition, the underlying networks of the
largest online service provider, America Online (including Compuserve), was sold to MCI-Worldcom. Accordingly,
the vast bulk the revenue from providing Internet access services is now part of the telecommunication market.
The second major area where Internet has stimulated revenue growth in the telecommunication market is
in traditional and new access services. For those PTOs which charge for local calls, Internet access has considerably increased the time during which users stay online, thereby increasing revenues from this segment of the
market. For PTOs which do not charge for local calls, the major area of revenue growth due to the Internet has
been in sales of second lines to residential customers. At the beginning of 1992 there were 6.5 million additional residential lines in the United States. By the end of 1996 there were 15.8 million “second” residential
lines. Company-level data in the United States suggest that if this growth were to continue, there would be an
estimated 17.5 million “second” residential lines in service by the end of 1997. The annual rentals on these
lines make this a US$4.2 billion market in 1997. An additional US$0.5 billion would have been generated
in second-line connection charges between 1992 and 1997. From the beginning of 1998, the additional
“non-primary line” charge of US$4.99 applied to additional lines will add a further US$1 billion.
The other major revenue impact of the Internet can be seen in sales of leased lines and new access services such as ISDN. While PTOs have emerged as the largest ISPs, smaller ISPs are major users of leased lines.
These ISPs use leased lines to put together their own backbone networks and to connect to the backbone networks of larger ISPs. Leased lines (private lines in the United States) are also the major means of providing
business users with a permanent connection to the Internet. In the United States, between 1992 and 1996, revenue from leased lines increased for local (by 54 per cent), long distance (by 37 per cent) and international (by
77 per cent). Stimulated by growth of the Internet and alternative calling procedures, revenue from international leased line sales has shown spectacular increases between the United States and the rest of the world
with a jump of 29 per cent in 1997. This compares to a growth rate per annum of 22 per cent between 1992
and 1997 and 10 per cent between 1987 and 1992.
Company-level data suggest that demand for leased lines in the United States is continuing. For the first
half of 1998, MCI-Worldcom reported a 39 per cent increase in domestic leased line revenue and a 74 per cent
increase in Internet revenue. MCI-Worldcom say that growth in the Internet category is being driven by both
dial-up and dedicated connectivity to the Internet as more and more business customers migrate their data
networks and applications to Internet-based technologies. Similarly, in the second quarter of 1998 revenues
from Sprint’s portfolio of Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Internet Protocol (IP) services
grew by 60 per cent compared with the previous year.
From March 1993 to March 1997, in the United Kingdom, revenue from leased lines for domestic service
increased by 17 per cent and international service by 87 per cent, with the largest increase occurring in the provision of digital leased lines. This is against a general backdrop of falling leased line prices over longer distances. For example, the amount of leased line capacity actually in use for international service from the
United Kingdom rose by around 300 per cent during this period. In Japan, from March 1996 to March 1997, the
number of analogue leased circuits decreased by 3.4 per cent, the number of high-speed digital circuits
increased 87.5 per cent; NTT’s leased line revenue rose by 10 per cent for the same year. For the year to
March 1998, the number of high-speed digital circuits leased by NTT increased by 57.5 per cent and revenue
received from leased lines grew by 13.9 per cent.
50
While most other PTOs show similar access service growth stimulated by the Internet, in some countries
the revenue increases are in other market segments. This depends to a large extent on how PTOs choose to
price and market different services for the Internet. In Australia, where Telstra emphasizes ISDN for Internet
connections, the number of ISDN access lines increased by 86 per cent between June 1995 and June 1997, while
the company’s revenue for text and data services increased by 38 per cent. Similarly, France Telecom’s revenues from leased lines fell slightly in each of the years 1995, 1996 and 1997. However, its revenue rose by
2.8 per cent in data transmission between 1996 and 1997. France Telecom attributed the decrease in revenue
in the leased line market to price reductions and the increase in data communications market to greater use of
the public Internet and private intranets. In Germany, the number of Deutsche Telekom’s ISDN channels in service grew by 41.1 per cent during 1997, with revenues from data services growing by 8.7 per cent. Increasing
infrastructure competition and Internet use in these countries can be expected to continue to increase the data
communications market, but also to fuel the leased line markets in Australia, France and Germany.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Revenue and expenditure segments
Few PTOs report telecommunication revenue in different market segments in the same way. Figure 3.6
gives an indication of the relative importance of different market segments for leading PTOs. As a general rule,
the likelihood of a market segment being reported separately increases with size. Virtually all PTOs now report
mobile communication revenue as an individual business line. With a small number of exceptions, such as
TeleDanmark and MCI-Worldcom, few PTOs yet report revenue from Internet access. Further separation of
telecommunication business operations from postal services is increasing the reporting of different business
segments. When the 1998 financial and operational results are published, Luxembourg will be the only OECD
Member country still jointly reporting postal and telecommunication services. Member countries to have
recently separated these two activities include Austria, Iceland and Switzerland.
Wages continue to be the major item of expenditure by PTOs (Table 3.5). However, due to reporting differences, these figures need to be viewed cautiously in terms of making comparisons. Some PTOs report pension
contributions in the same total as wages. Other PTOs or statistical agencies report these items separately.
Telecommunications and GDP
Taken together, the new revenue streams, particularly those generated by mobile communication and the
Internet, as well as the stimulation of traditional services provided by liberalisation, continue to expand the
telecommunication sector relative to GDP (Table 3.6). Telecommunication services grew from 2.32 per cent of
GDP in 1995 to 2.71 per cent in 1997. Noteworthy, given the potential for telecommunication to enable growth
in other sectors, is the growing importance of telecommunication services in countries which have made the
transition to market-based economies.
Figure 3.6. PTO revenue by sector
% of total revenue
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Non-specified revenue
Leased lines revenue
Mobile revenue
National fixed and usage revenue
Local service revenue (including
fixed and local calls)
Rental revenue
Overall domestic call revenue
Local call revenue
Long distance revenue (including
national and international)
Long distance revenue
International revenue
10
Be
Au
st
ra
lia
Au Te
l
g
s ls
C
an ium tria tra
C ada Be PT
D zec B lga A
en h el
c
m Re l C om
a
a
Fi rk pub na
T
n
l d
G Fra lan ele ic S a
er n d D
m ce Fi an PT
an F nn m
y ra et ar
D nc G k
eu e ro
ts Te up
ch le
Ic
el
e co
an
G Tele m
d
Te H ree co
Ire lec un ce m
la om ga O
nd
ry TE
Te Ice Ma
le lan ta
Ita co d v
ly m (P
Te Ei TI
le re )
co an
Lu
Ja m I n
xe K
p ta
m or
bo ea J an lia
ur K ap KD
g or a D
P& ea n
N
T
T NT
et
Lu ele T
he
N rla Me xem com
ew n
x
b
Ze ds ico ou
al KP Te rg
an N lm
T e
d
Te ele x
Po
N lec com
or om
rtu
w
ga
a ,
l P Po y T NZ
or lan eln
tu d o
Sp ga TP r
ai l Te SA
n
Sw
T lec
itz Sw elef om
e
Tu rla ed onic
rk nd en a
e
S T
U y Tü wi elia
ni
te rk ssc
U d K Tele om
ni in
te gd ko
m
d
St om
at B
es T
FC
C
0
Note: KDD’s revenue is 99.9% from international services and 0.1% from internal services.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
51
Communications Outlook 1999
International services
In 1997 the international telecommunication services market generated over US$47 billion in revenues for
PTOs in OECD countries. Accordingly, international service made up around 7.6 per cent of all telecommunication
revenue in the OECD area (Table 3.7). While the amount of international traffic continues to rise, the effect of
falling prices and faster growth in other areas means that this segment is decreasing its overall share of the total
market. In 1997 the United States surpassed US$20 billion in international revenues for the first time. This
figure comprised some US$15 billion from international telecommunication services for facilities-based carriers and US$4 billion for resellers. The remainder of the revenue was made up by sales of international leased
lines, international telex services, telegram and miscellaneous revenues.
Between 1987 and 1997 outgoing minutes of international traffic grew by nearly 14 per cent per annum
(Table 3.8). Much of this growth was due to the increase in the size of the PSTN. Measuring the increase in international traffic, weighted by the increase in access lines, gives a better indication of growth linked to other factors (e.g. lower prices and increased marketing, increased use of facsimile machines, and so forth). The pattern
of telephone traffic between OECD countries is shown in Table 3.9. The largest traffic routes to other OECD
countries are shown for each country where complete data were not available. Due to rounding, some totals
between countries appear as zero.
Research and development
PTOs and telecommunication equipment manufacturers have continued to increase research and development expenditures in line with growth in revenues. France Telecom, NTT, Sonera and Telia spent among the
largest relative amounts in terms of revenue among PTOs in 1997 (Table 3.10). On the other hand, manufacturers based in the United States, such as Lucent and Motorola, appear to be devoting the highest proportion of
revenues to research and development. Manufacturers specialising in Internet equipment which have
Figure 3.7. Minutes of outgoing international telecommunication traffic (MiTT), 1997
Outgoing MiTT per access line 1997
Outgoing MiTT per access line
1 200
Outgoing MiTT CAGR per access line 1987-97
Outgoing MiTT CAGR per access line (1987-97) %
25
1 000
20
800
15
600
10
400
5
200
0
Lu
xe
m
Sw bo
itz urg
er
la
n
Ire d
la
n
Au d
st
Be ria
lg
iu
Ic m
el
an
N Ca d
ew n
ad
Ze a
al
a
Sw nd
ed
D
en en
m
a
N rk
N or
e
w
U
ni the ay
te rla
d
Ki nds
ng
d
Au om
st
ra
U M lia
ni
te exic
d
St o
at
e
Fi s
nl
an
O d
EC
G D
re
G ece
er
m
a
C
ze Po ny
r
ch tu
R ga
ep l
ub
Fr lic
an
c
Sp e
ai
n
Ita
l
Po y
la
H nd
un
ga
r
Tu y
rk
e
Ja y
pa
Ko n
re
a
0
52
Note: Hungary’s MiTT CAGR per access line is -0.1%.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
headquarters in the United States, are also steeply increasing R&D budgets, proportional with the rapid growth
in revenues (Table 3.11). Between 1995 and 1997, R&D expenditure on Internet has increased by 55 per cent
per annum. Traditional telecommunication equipment manufacturers such as Lucent and Ericcson are increasing their activities in Internet-related areas. The company recording the highest R&D expenditure in this category, Bay Networks, merged with Nortel in 1998.
The number of patents granted in the communication industry, as recorded by the category for electronic
equipment and components, continues to increase. Between 1986 and 1996, the number of patents for this category in the world grew by around 7 per cent per annum (Table 3.12, Figure 3.8). The numbers show the country
of origin for the patent. Finland and Sweden led the way, with the highest increases in patents granted
between 1991 and 1996. These data most likely reflect the leading performance of these countries in all aspects
of mobile communication. Nokia, a leading manufacturer of mobile communication equipment with its headquarters in Finland, increased R&D expenditure by 32 per cent per annum between 1993 and 1997. The largest
number of patents continue to be granted to firms in the United States and Japan. Japan had a much higher
growth rate than the United States in the first half of the period from 1986 to 1996. In the second half of this
period the .growth rates of these two countries have been at the same level.
Figure 3.8. US Patent Office: number of patents granted in electronic equipment
and components industry
OECD
World
25 000
25 000
20 000
20 000
15 000
15 000
10 000
10 000
5 000
5 000
0
0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: OECD.
53
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 3.1.
Revenue 1997
(million US$)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
13
3
4
17
1
4
3
28
43
3
2
725.8
734.3
244.0
023.1
261.6
623.9
069.8
636.3
595.7
285.5
109.4
151.0
2 132.2
23 879.6
109 957.0
9 097.24
306.0
7 681.2
7 930.8
2 245.9
3 608.3
2 593.8
4 580.5
13 822.4
6 905.3
6 787.6
3 159.5
35 733.2
256 801.0
622 681.8
Public telecommunication revenue in the OECD area
Revenue CAGR 1987-92,
based on constant US$
10.17
3.32
4.40
–1.01
..
2.14
1.43
2.81
4.58
2.93
3.45
2.04
5.08
3.56
3.28
9.60
16.25
24.66
5.45
0.32
–3.16
8.32
12.37
10.50
4.29
3.52
7.07
1.76
–0.94
4.50
Revenue CAGR 1987-92
based on current prices
and local currencies
15.92
6.45
7.17
3.12
9.16
5.47
6.49
5.96
7.82
19.98
27.88
16.63
8.39
9.63
5.54
17.69
19.68
69.27
7.68
4.66
0.92
..
24.79
17.17
11.64
7.71
78.34
8.20
3.32
Revenue CAGR 1992-97,
based on constant US$
5.51
2.43
5.78
9.58
11.53
12.23
11.18
4.58
4.42
13.48
26.97
10.04
9.52
6.78
11.76
14.72
5.81
2.73
5.66
4.40
8.80
6.69
12.64
6.97
5.96
2.38
5.37
4.91
6.95
7.34
Revenue CAGR 1992-97
based on current prices
and local currencies
7.88
4.88
7.97
11.19
24.16
14.40
12.52
6.39
6.98
24.32
55.20
12.53
11.58
10.85
12.60
20.44
8.03
24.07
8.09
6.55
10.97
34.82
17.52
11.13
8.42
3.87
94.82
7.65
9.88
Note: Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) based on US$ is calculated in constant 1990 prices and exchange rates deflated by the Consumer Price Index.
Source: OECD.
54
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Table 3.2.
Major growth areas in telecommunication revenue: mobile telecommunication
1993
(million US$)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand1
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1
1
7
1
10
27
511.77
..
170.05
909.67
38.87
191.39
252.80
494.42
865.96
22.03
..
..
..
192.11
986.51
546.48
3.70
..
413.44
94.73
237.38
..
124.51
270.60
605.90
230.58
35.36
294.68
237.00
729.95
Per cent
of total revenue
1995
(million US$)
Per cent
of total revenue
1997
(million US$)
Per cent
of total revenue
5.81
..
5.30
7.54
6.46
6.80
15.54
2.21
5.13
1.17
..
..
..
6.99
11.46
7.42
1.64
..
6.50
7.02
9.67
..
4.55
2.82
13.34
3.80
1.39
5.34
5.92
6.65
1 776.71
..
419.22
1 399.72
112.11
311.92
512.71
2 140.25
4 203.77
293.61
286.33
13.13
..
2 847.76
25 281.62
2 216.80
15.33
449.46
861.68
205.58
479.09
..
374.09
613.42
896.83
538.92
133.52
2 641.96
18 759.00
67 784.55
15.40
..
9.73
11.68
11.26
8.37
20.23
7.10
9.11
10.49
23.80
9.92
..
15.41
23.72
20.87
5.11
6.92
10.15
9.83
15.29
..
10.13
5.57
12.83
6.69
7.31
9.31
9.42
12.77
2 515.41
868.85
661.38
2 085.20
367.86
581.01
888.76
4 709.95
6 668.40
787.83
768.63
27.10
370.12
6 630.77
43 615.70
3 488.53
..
658.51
1 430.27
206.87
829.75
..
965.31
3 182.93
1 277.54
945.52
568.37
6 728.31
33 030.00
124 858.88
18.33
23.27
15.58
12.25
29.16
12.57
28.95
16.45
15.30
23.98
36.44
17.95
17.36
27.77
39.67
38.35
..
8.57
18.03
9.21
23.00
..
21.07
23.03
18.50
13.93
17.99
18.83
12.86
20.15
1.
Data are for Telecom New Zealand only in 1997.
Source: OECD.
55
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 3.3.
Public telecommunication revenue ratios
Per access line
Per capita
1997 (US$)
1997 (PPP)
1997 (US$)
1997 (PPP)
1 468
1 002
859
922
385
1 385
1 073
850
965
605
663
972
1 421
929
1 827
382
1 094
830
895
1 221
1 320
345
1 144
872
1 149
1 447
180
1 137
1 433
1 166
1 521
906
840
1 092
983
1 101
953
762
836
737
1 467
886
1 400
993
1 356
895
988
1 491
852
1 256
1 013
740
1 630
1 029
913
1 044
386
1 072
1 433
1 156
752
458
417
569
123
881
597
489
530
312
211
551
599
417
875
199
734
81
506
617
827
67
467
348
781
933
50
614
945
570
779
414
407
673
315
700
530
439
460
380
467
502
590
446
650
466
663
146
482
635
635
144
666
411
620
673
108
579
945
563
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Note: OECD is a weighted rather than a simple average.
Source: OECD.
56
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Table 3.4.
Cellular mobile telecommunication revenue per cellular mobile subscriber
In US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand2
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
750.40
..
2 509.16
682.43
3 485.53
535.24
550.68
1 058.72
1 055.41
786.84
..
..
..
987.69
783.36
1 158.32
728.23
..
1 914.08
658.79
644.88
..
1 229.93
1 051.85
771.85
889.57
419.98
584.29
695.83
766.12
882.52
..
1 933.08
592.07
2 965.69
461.82
504.59
874.78
1 126.80
214.84
1 020.91
427.69
..
886.36
991.44
1 231.84
959.86
1 571.57
1 550.79
728.43
493.06
..
1 114.30
842.15
510.43
1 009.10
353.27
485.16
633.84
777.21
925.21
..
1 783.92
540.48
2 451.91
379.29
503.84
1 486.39
1 126.11
533.84
1 097.06
425.29
..
725.47
1 132.55
1 350.64
570.61
796.89
1 604.59
626.17
488.72
..
1 097.54
660.34
446.63
1 208.33
305.86
465.95
597.42
803.84
549.22
..
..
523.19
754.87
507.49
316.60
1 329.73
..
694.40
1 284.47
432.34
882.76
723.94
1 009.71
1 282.83
..
..
236.65
..
571.26
..
984.85
767.20
440.53
1 137.84
339.59
693.87
591.44
760.81
529.73
746.26
678.69
495.65
705.43
402.36
379.15
818.48
815.66
875.37
1 090.25
412.13
724.66
565.09
961.34
505.92
..
376.94
847.04
434.43
494.85
..
640.57
735.04
403.14
905.32
353.07
806.37
597.15
707.74
1.
Includes all mobile revenue and subscribers: cellular, PHS, pagers.
2.
Data are for Telecom New Zealand only in 1997.
Source: OECD.
57
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 3.5.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland2
Italy
Japan
Korea3
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand4
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain5
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1.
Data are for
2.
Data are for
3.
Data are for
4.
Data are for
5.
Data are for
Source: OECD.
Major areas of PTO expenditure, 1997
Depreciation
as a percentage
of total expenditure
Wages
as a percentage
of total expenditure
Net interest paid
as a percentage
of total expenditure
Taxes
as a percentage
of total revenues
24.86
..
25.91
29.90
18.49
18.27
58.31
23.50
33.14
18.15
24.77
15.14
28.73
47.16
21.33
37.13
..
30.36
28.66
26.53
21.33
..
19.47
35.40
19.55
22.34
20.38
20.16
17.39
26.40
37.68
..
40.25
16.66
18.11
25.00
24.05
22.43
21.88
38.34
20.16
38.61
31.96
34.66
19.80
19.34
..
..
30.30
27.30
34.46
..
18.68
33.53
20.46
33.20
43.20
28.27
22.80
28.05
4.75
..
11.34
7.28
3.82
3.47
1.13
4.29
10.77
4.86
11.98
2.57
1.71
2.74
2.16
3.28
..
8.28
5.54
6.72
2.29
..
0.39
11.03
1.54
5.18
..
3.80
3.88
4.99
5.38
..
5.43
6.58
6.24
6.41
2.90
3.59
6.11
14.44
0.28
6.81
6.10
8.89
4.01
0.36
1.28
10.79
6.35
20.20
3.05
..
7.50
2.28
2.38
0.01
4.68
7.80
4.99
5.74
Sonera (Telecom Finland) only for Wages and Interest paid ratios.
Telecom Eireann only.
KT only.
Telecom New Zealand only.
Telefónica only.
58
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Table 3.6.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic1
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Public telecommunication revenue as a percentage of GDP
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
1.98
1.70
1.29
2.24
2.12
1.54
1.53
1.68
1.85
1.35
..
1.30
2.40
1.49
1.61
2.03
1.07
0.52
1.50
2.51
1.91
..
2.76
1.49
1.83
2.15
1.03
2.35
2.75
2.19
2.95
1.77
1.37
2.03
1.87
1.82
1.65
1.58
1.67
1.56
..
1.36
2.84
1.47
1.56
2.04
1.41
1.53
1.77
3.37
2.02
..
2.04
1.75
2.32
2.14
1.37
2.63
2.63
2.07
3.19
1.86
1.58
2.14
1.97
2.16
2.01
1.96
1.91
2.45
2.73
1.90
2.72
1.70
2.08
2.33
1.74
2.27
2.13
3.47
2.14
1.60
3.67
1.95
3.02
2.61
1.08
2.56
2.83
2.32
3.39
1.75
1.67
2.22
2.00
1.90
2.15
1.99
1.79
2.54
4.19
2.13
2.86
1.99
2.43
3.08
1.85
2.10
2.13
3.29
2.17
1.89
4.10
2.35
3.01
2.61
1.41
2.59
2.90
2.48
3.49
1.81
1.75
2.76
2.42
2.72
2.56
2.06
2.09
2.74
4.79
2.04
2.92
2.08
2.62
3.19
1.97
1.91
2.18
3.48
2.35
1.91
4.52
2.60
3.03
2.66
1.66
2.72
3.17
2.71
GDP per capita
1997 (US$)
21
25
23
20
5
32
23
23
25
11
4
27
20
20
33
6
37
4
23
17
35
3
10
13
25
35
3
22
29
21
536
280
803
619
083
402
325
785
428
406
404
007
537
011
349
235
170
267
204
718
149
515
340
397
752
115
030
553
858
071
Note: OECD average is a weighted rather than a simple average.
1.
Data for the Czech Republic before 1991 is for the Czech and Slovak Republics.
Source: OECD.
59
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 3.7. Major growth areas of telecommunication revenue: international telecommunication revenue, 1997
Australia
Austria1
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan4
Korea5
Luxembourg
Mexico6
Netherlands7
New Zealand8
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Spain
Sweden9
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom10
United States
OECD
International revenue
(million US$)
As a percentage of total revenue
Per access line (US$)
1 279
532
552
1 435
241
370
214
2 165
2 907
548
124
..
358
1 467
4 100
444
..
1 446
1 072
328
600
366
476
922
259
948
139
3 746
20 090
47 127
9.32
14.25
13.00
8.43
19.07
8.00
6.96
7.56
6.67
16.68
5.90
..
16.78
6.14
3.73
4.88
..
18.86
13.52
14.59
16.63
14.11
10.39
6.67
3.75
13.97
4.39
10.48
7.82
7.57
136.8
142.8
111.7
77.8
73.4
110.8
74.7
64.2
64.3
100.9
39.1
..
238.6
57.1
68.1
18.7
..
156.2
121.0
178.1
219.5
48.7
118.9
58.2
43.1
202.2
7.9
119.2
112.1
88.3
1. Yankee Group estimates.
2. Total revenue for Teleglobe.
3. TeleDanmark only.
4. Includes KDD, Japan Telecom, IDC.
5. Korea Telecom only.
6. Telmex only.
7. KPN only.
8. Telecom NZ only.
9. Telia only.
10. BT and Cable & Wireless only.
Source: OECD.
60
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Table 3.8.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
International telecommunication traffic
Outgoing MiTT
per capita
1997
Outgoing MiTT
per access line
1997
Outgoing MiTT CAGR
1987-97
Outgoing MiTT CAGR
per access line
1987-97
73.26
127.76
120.63
142.55
30.80
119.59
70.91
54.66
58.56
56.74
21.71
137.56
168.27
35.46
14.10
19.71
688.29
13.15
98.01
111.78
110.22
13.70
40.11
33.11
128.90
273.50
8.88
91.89
84.97
56.25
142.99
279.85
248.85
231.22
96.14
187.96
127.44
94.96
106.48
109.92
68.16
242.67
399.25
78.99
29.44
37.87
1 026.02
133.95
173.25
221.20
175.93
70.49
98.24
82.94
189.68
424.31
31.70
170.16
128.82
115.45
16.21
11.01
9.44
12.64
23.31
8.76
10.81
9.28
8.13
14.30
14.47
10.49
29.15
11.23
15.67
26.63
10.99
21.86
9.34
15.45
7.72
28.09
17.26
16.24
10.09
8.02
19.49
13.26
17.81
13.75
13.04
8.29
5.43
9.13
13.55
6.52
8.72
5.99
2.78
9.28
–0.13
7.04
21.22
7.98
13.09
16.37
5.07
12.33
5.56
11.74
4.13
15.95
7.36
11.27
9.08
4.90
3.24
9.36
13.80
7.76
Note: MiTTs is minutes of international telecommunications traffic. OECD is a weighted average.
1.
Korea Telecom only.
Source: OECD, Telegeography.
61
OECD 1999
5
12
37
15
21
5
5
11
23
426
7
30
0
246
146
12
4
0
5
59
56
2
9
166
21
Source: ITU, Telegeography.
56
254
18
6
..
3
4
43
40
15
1
6
20
30
14
1
18
17
7
4
..
89
3
3
13
0
7
5
9
9
10
5
8
35
10
17
79
32
20
12
9
3
1
124 133
54 112 3 462 26
781 1 161 3 850 168
(155) (59) (632) 32
15
2
144
282
699
(179)
9
..
21
285
50
10
23
10
..
379
24
8
1
15
250
22
8
50
6
118
345
29
43
149 12
7
65
45
35
2
1
75
2
4 0
1
13
. . 12
106
4
5
14
10 . .
30
23
344
267
101 30
. . 125 70 2
24 393
4
2
90 . .
4 0
1
46
59
3 ..
14
6
3
..
1
20
..
8
14
7
326 38 16
8
..
27
13
14
3
1
51
2
0 0
1
11
7
6
23
8
355 12
6 1
13
50
4
65 10
14
25
3
8
7
23 172
22
68
38
13
10
158 161
68
105 145
40
95
20
13
301 436 12 11
269
4
2
25 159
7
2 0
1
15
64
406 405 79
549 224
61 27 441 781 91 36 9 121 333
514 245 2 755 4 319 385 178 20 726 1 949
(27) (28) (564)
23 (11) (12) 9 (175) (434)
1
0
0
24
1
8
22
36
1
6
8
163
..
..
19
253
17
8
23
8
107
336
11
7
1
10
46
7
0
6
34
13
1
7
74
1
1
16
14
15
12
3
0
30
3
7
11
9
..
4
12
46
163
372
10
7
0
18
185
6
2
7
2
41
9
..
7
3
95
109
29
78
9
4
3
27
..
4
0
703 382
9
922 554 131
(171) (195) 107
14
..
6
9 115
6
14
..
4 12
6
11
..
54
17
9
35
41
. . 15
36
45
130
30
15 . .
25
47
70
64 20
..
20
2
2
0
3
5
13
193
60 208 72 122
2 381 207 59 51 160
45 147 103 181
2 411 1 448 226 308 654 480 1 092 741 1 294
(1 427) (65) 27 64 (334) (211) (321) 101 323
145
25
45
900
9
28
16
179
304
32
11
7
55
121
385
170
6
927
95
28
35
Total
199
185
5
1
56
12
185
17
108
155 2
1
17
7
62
23
38 340
370 363
8
71
13
4
420
12 169
51
13
0
14
5
30 193
39
3
50
25
36
147
95
30 108
..
40
59
..
58 1 179
653 3 940 6
(296) (438) 5
25
11
United States
140
69
1
3
28
316
6
3
0
0
49
26
United Kingdom
3
11
20
10
Turkey
0
Switzerland
Portugal
12
11
Poland
41
Norway
New Zealand
Netherlands
Mexico
Luxembourg
16
2
13
7
14
155
44
11
..
125
1
3
8
9
Sweden
18
7
Korea
35
..
11
1
Japan
Italy
Ireland
Iceland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
..
Spain
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD Total
Balance
Austria
From/to
Australia
In millions of minutes
1
3
2
4
1
1
14
48
70
108 1
28
660 3
. . 11
451
048
520
626
102
218
201
487
218
191
342
374
166
29
551
515
750
359
239
985
383
253
372
319
269
771
842
616
357
502
499
Communications Outlook 1999
62
Table 3.9. Telephone traffic between OECD countries, 1996
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Market Size
Table 3.10.
R&D expenditures for PTOs and telecommunications equipment manufacturers, 1997
In millions of US$
PTO
R&D expenditure
R&D as a percentage
of total revenue
2 388
918
829
692
502
207
202
169
122
113
113
60
55
52
41
31
31
27
22
18
17
5
4
3
3.1
3.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
6.3
3.3
1.2
0.5
2.2
3.1
0.8
1.4
3.5
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
NTT
France Telecom
AT&T
Deutsche Telekom
BT
AllTEL
Telia
Cable and Wireless
GTE
Korea Telecom
Telenor
KPN Telecom
Vodafone
Sonera (Telecom Finland)
SK Telecom
KDD
Tele Danmark
Bell Canada
Mannesmann1
Belgacom
Telus
Japan Telecom
Telecom New Zealand
Dacom
Manufacturer
R&D as a percentage
of total revenue
R&D expenditure
Siemens
Fujitsu
Ericsson
Lucent Technologies Inc.
NEC
Alcatel
Motorola
Nortel
Nokia
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
690
199
175
023
880
844
748
147
879
7.6
7.8
14.5
11.5
7.0
8.9
9.2
13.9
8.7
1.
Includes Mobilfunk, Arcor and Eurokom.
Source: OECD.
Table 3.11.
Revenues and R&D expenditures for manufacturers of Internet equipment, 1995-97
In millions of US$
Revenues
Company
Country
1995
3Com
Bay Networks
Cabletron Systems
Cisco Systems
Total
Source:
R&D as a percentage
of revenue (%)
R&D expenditure
United
United
United
United
States
States
States
States
1 404
2 233
833
1 593
6 063
1996
2
4
1
2
9
057
096
100
327
580
1997
2
6
1
3
13
093
440
407
147
087
CAGR
%
1995
1996
1997
CAGR
%
1995
1996
1997
22.1
69.8
29.9
40.5
46.9
145
211
89
166
612
214
399
127
233
973
270
698
162
335
1 465
36.3
82.0
34.7
42.0
54.8
10.4
9.4
10.7
10.4
10.1
10.4
9.7
11.6
10.0
10.2
12.9
10.8
11.5
10.7
11.2
OECD.
63
OECD 1999
1980
OECD countries
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
14
14
10
14
12
21
16
10
13
8
11
17
11
13
13
11
14
11
13
32
26
87
96
91
93
119
136
136
3
2
3
1
1
6
0
14
4
8
5
6
8
8
6
8
3
5
6
8
10
267
266
276
248
293
333
356
377
465
442
403
425
574
503
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
4
0
4
1
2
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
1
1
3
3
54
68
64
35
36
60
63
1 066 1 163 1 252 1 365 1 640 2 084 2 210 3
..
..
..
..
..
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
2
1
3
141
118
146
140
155
180
184
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
4
5
4
3
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
2
3
1
32
42
34
33
47
60
58
82
66
72
58
65
78
73
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
236
250
239
193
197
268
322
3 999 3 818 3 703 3 682 4 160 4 717 4 892 6
6 417 6 415 6 377 6 302 7 205 8 597 8 895 11
1988
1993
1994
1995
1996
45.3
38.4
33.7
6 478 6 484 6 421 6 354 7 260 8 658 8 946 11 980 11 028 13 767 13 018 14 763 15 037 15 443 17 237 18 476 20 391
99.0 98.9 99.3 99.2 99.2 99.3 99.4
99.3
98.8
98.6
98.1
97.4
97.0
96.0
95.3
94.5
93.3
7.3
–0.8
6.7
–0.8
Note: Data from ISIC 3832, Revision 2.
Source: OECD.
2
0
5
2
1
16
3
0
13
4
0
23
4
2
47
6
4
66
9
5
78
30
25
30
191
0
12
28
474
684
0
3
0
8
108
789 5
2
1
3
259
2
13
0
1
4
49
101
0
407
149 7
374 14
31
16
31
200
0
14
34
437
565
2
2
0
7
106
244 5
15
1
3
211
4
12
1
1
8
57
80
1
328
171 7
580 14
32
19
40
181
1
5
37
444
551
0
2
0
10
97
143 5
20
1
4
175
0
13
0
0
12
62
79
0
296
600 8
822 16
26
24
32
216
0
9
63
472
604
1
2
0
14
108
928 6
45
0
3
194
2
10
0
0
6
84
86
0
320
186 8
434 17
37
19
46
214
1
11
72
463
608
0
1
1
16
107
134 6
78
0
1
232
3
8
0
1
5
109
90
0
394
812 9
461 19
29
17
54
280
0
11
90
481
634
1
3
1
13
150
535
3
5
112
9
19
135
10
22
189
7
23
222
12
18
376
CAGR
CAGR
1986-96 1991-96
5.7
32.0
36.8
3
0
8
39
20
21
216
0
7
12
437
624
1
8
0
10
126
126 4
4
0
2
267
2
4
2
0
6
52
78
1
383
331 7
776 14
1992
16
27
480
3
0
9
31
25
29
213
1
18
16
477
803
0
4
0
7
125
324 4
3
0
1
275
2
9
1
1
6
65
89
0
465
588 6
575 12
1991
0
3
231
5
15
1
1
13
170
70
0
408
811
025
6
0
10
20
20
30
172
1
11
8
442
736
1
6
0
6
107
259 4
1
0
1
214
1
13
1
0
7
54
87
1
358
346 6
901 13
1990
–0.9
–7.8
12.2
7.9
..
–1.2
26.8
0.3
–1.5
..
–2.6
..
10.9
6.7
6.4
..
..
–5.4
–2.3
18.1
3.4
10.8
14.9
24.8
28.4
–7.0
..
0.0
6.5
5.8
4
1
5
21
17
26
175
1
6
14
439
696
2
4
0
7
118
380 3
4
0
2
268
4
14
1
0
3
69
95
1
397
134 5
894 10
1989
5.9
2.3
7.4
7.5
..
2.9
24.6
3.1
2.3
12.8
–3.5
25.9
15.9
9.0
11.5
81.0
..
–2.7
2.3
4.4
13.4
..
..
25.9
11.4
–0.4
..
2.4
7.2
7.9
Non-OECD countries
Hong Kong (China)
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
World
OECD as % of world
1981
Communications Outlook 1999
64
Table 3.12. US Patent Office: Number of patents granted in electronic equipment and components industry
OECD 1999
Chapter 4
NETWORK DIMENSIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
The number of telecommunication access lines in the OECD area reached 534 million in 1997 (Table 4.1).
This means that over 125 million access lines have been added to public switched networks since 1990. This
development has greatly expanded access to telecommunication services. There is now just under one access
line for every two people in the OECD area, compared to a ratio of one in three a decade ago (Table 4.2).
The provision of a basic telecommunication service has been, in large part, accomplished for two-thirds of
OECD countries. While significant challenges remain, particularly in Mexico and Poland, only six countries had
less than 40 access lines per 100 inhabitants by the end of 1997 (Figure 4.1). As the bulk of demand for first
access lines has been satisfied in OECD countries, the market for connecting new telecommunication access
lines is now larger outside the OECD area. This is primarily due to the major network expansion occurring in
China. In 1997, China added 15.4 million additional access lines, compared to 17.5 million for the OECD area.
The OECD’s share of the world’s access lines continues to fall and stood at 68.4 per cent in 1997.
Figure 4.1. Access lines per 100 inhabitants in OECD countries, 1990, 1995 and 1997
1990
Access lines per 100 inhabitants
80
Added between 1991 and 1995
Added between 1995 and 1997
Access lines per 100 inhabitants
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
e
en urg tates land ark rway nada ance land nds land any om orea eece ralia land erag ium pan stria Italy land tugal pain ublic gary rkey land xico
o
r
ed
m o Ca
S ep un
Fr Ice erla Fin erm ingd K Gr ust Zea av Belg Ja Au
Tu Po Me
Ire Por
Sw emb ited S witze Den N
H
h
A
G
K
D
t
w
hR
x
d
S
Ne
ec
Ne OEC
Lu Un
ite
z
n
C
U
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
65
Communications Outlook 1999
Growth in Countries with Low Network Penetration
Between 1987 and 1997, growth in the number of access lines has averaged around 4 per cent per annum
in the OECD area. It was slightly faster in the first half of the period than in the second. One reason for this is
that a number of countries with very low network penetration levels (access lines per 100 inhabitants) launched
drives to accelerate development in the mid- to late 1980s. As a result, countries such as Korea and Turkey have
greatly increased the size of their networks. Korea’s efforts meant that already by 1995 it had exceeded the
average penetration rate of the OECD. However, for both these countries, along with Mexico and Portugal, network expansion rates were lower between 1992 and 1997. That being said, the expansion of the fixed network
in Turkey continues to be among the highest in the OECD countries. In 1997 Turkey had the ninth largest network in the OECD area, after being in twentieth place in 1985.
Along with Turkey, the countries with the highest growth rates between 1992 and 1997 were those that had
made the transition to market economies. Hungary’s network expanded by just under 20 per cent per annum
during this period. At the same time, the Czech Republic and Poland experienced double-digit growth
between 1992 and 1997. In terms of network penetration, the Czech Republic and Hungary have made tremendous strides, with Hungary increasing the number of access lines per 100 inhabitants from a mere 9.6 in 1990 to
31.9 in 1997. Starting from a higher base, the Czech Republic finished the period with 32 access lines per
100 inhabitants. This is in contrast to Poland, which finished the period with less than 20 access lines per
100 inhabitants. Beginning the decade with just 12 lines per 100 inhabitants, Turkey has also made tremendous
gains over this period, lifting its penetration rate to 28 access lines per 100 inhabitants.
By way of contrast, even with a growth rate that was almost twice the OECD average between 1992
and 1997, Mexico’s penetration has not been able to rise above ten lines per 100 inhabitants. That being said,
a number of services to remote users in countries such as Mexico and Spain are provided by cellular radio networks. Nevertheless, low growth rates in Member countries with penetration rates well below the OECD average should be a matter of concern to policy makers. Encouraging new market entry is one option available,
particularly as new technologies, such as fixed wireless networks, make it less expensive to build local access
networks.
Developments in Countries with High Network Penetration
For those countries with very high levels of network penetration, several factors are affecting growth rates
in the fixed network. One factor is the increase in demand for Internet access which is boosting demand for second residential lines and ISDN. In the United States, between 1992 and 1997, the increased demand for second
residential lines, and to a lesser extent ISDN, was primarily responsible for much faster network growth than
over the previous five years. By way of contrast, in the Scandinavian countries where Internet access is also
driving demand for additional lines and ISDN, growth in the fixed network was on average lower than in the
United States. The reason for this probably lies in the substitution effect between mobile communication and
fixed network services which is occurring in Scandinavia.
In a growing number of countries it is necessary to examine the cellular mobile communication market to
understand the trends in the fixed network, including the first evidence of substitution. Between 1992 and 1997
the number of cellular mobile subscriptions grew by more than 50 per cent per annum in OECD countries
(Table 4.3). At the end of 1997 there were 170 million cellular mobile communication subscribers in the OECD
area, meaning that around one in six people had a mobile subscription. The Scandinavian countries have been
at the forefront of cellular mobile communication developments. At the end of 1997, Finland had a cellular
mobile penetration rate of 45.6 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, with Norway and Sweden not far behind
(Table 4.4).Cellular mobile subscribers in OECD countries.
66
Set against the context of high cellular mobile network penetration rates, it is perhaps not surprising
that the number of fixed access lines in Scandinavia has remained relatively constant over recent years.
Scandinavian countries had pre-existing high fixed network penetration rates including, in the case of Sweden,
a large number of residences with second access lines. In this context, mobile subscriptions are being used
instead of second lines in primary residences, as first lines in holiday homes, and to create mobile offices for
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Figure 4.2. Cellular mobile subscribers in OECD countries
1995
Number of subscribers (logarithmic scale)
100 000 000
1997
Number of subscribers (logarithmic scale)
100 000 000
10 000 000
10 000 000
1 000 000
1 000 000
100 000
100 000
10 000
10 000
1 000
1 000
100
100
10
10
0
0
ite
Un
l
tes apan Italy dom any orea rance pain nada tralia eden land exico lands rway rkey ark tuga stria land gium eece land gary ublic land land ourg land
g
S Ca us
n M er No
rm K F
J
Po Hun ep Ire Zea emb Ice
Tu enm Por Au itzer Bel Gr
Sw Fi
A
Kin Ge
D
x
eth
w
d
hR
N
Sw
e
it
Ne Lu
ec
n
U
Cz
ta
dS
Source: OECD.
some users who would otherwise require a fixed line. In addition, some new customers for telephone service
in Scandinavia are opting for a cellular connection as their first line and later perhaps migrating to a fixed line.
The extent of this substitution seems to be sufficient to offset the growth in demand for second residential lines
and ISDN for Internet access. In Norway, a similar situation exists to that in Finland and Sweden, although
there seems to be less of a substitution effect as the fixed network continues to expand, driven by increased
Internet demand.
In Finland, Norway and Sweden, the total number of telecommunication access paths (mobile subscriptions plus fixed access lines) now exceeds the number of inhabitants. In Finland, the number of mobile subscriptions passed 50 per 100 inhabitants in August 1998. If current trends continue, Finland is likely to be the
first country where the number of mobile subscriptions exceeds the number of fixed access lines. For countries
seeking to benchmark national performance, the total number of telecommunication access paths is increasingly the relevant measure. Outside Scandinavia, only Luxembourg and the United States exceed 80 access
paths per 100 inhabitants. If calendar year data instead of financial year data were used for Australia, it too
would join this group of countries.
The other country where mobile communication appears to be offering a significant substitution effect on
the fixed network, is Japan. The relatively high cost of joining the fixed network relative to a mobile subscription
seems to be attracting a growing number of users to take out only a mobile subscription. In Japan, subscribers
to the fixed network obtain the “right to a connection” rather than a connection to a specific location. For this
service they pay the highest initial fee of any OECD country but, in return, have the right to shift location, to
leave and rejoin the network, and to resell their “connection right”. Set against this context, the very low initial
fee to join a mobile communication network, together with low-cost user packages, is very attractive for some
users such as university students. Certainly Japan’s mobile communication sector is growing at an extremely
fast pace. In 1995 Japan ranked eleventh in terms of mobile communication subscriptions per 100 inhabitants,
but by 1997 it ranked fourth (Figure 4.3).
OECD 1999
67
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 4.3. Cellular mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants, 1997
50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
y
o
d
n
y ce
d
d
n
y
s
k alia nd taly tes rg CD gal rea nd nd
in
lic
a da
ry
ce
lan wa de apa ar
I Sta bou OE rtu Ko rela rla gdom ustri ana alan Spa rland rman ran lgium ree nga pub Turke olan exic
la
r
F Be
M
P
C
G Hu Re
I itze in
o
Fin Nor Swe J Denm Aust Ice
A
e Ge
Ze
m
d
P
e
h
w
w ed K
ite ux
eth
c
e
n
S
N
e
L
N
U
it
Cz
Un
Source: OECD.
Digitalisation
In 1997 some 89 per cent of access lines in the OECD area were digital (Table 4.5). Full digitalisation of
trunk networks had occurred in most OECD countries by the early 1990s. This was done in association with
deploying fibre optic cable as the medium of choice for inter-exchange transmission networks (Table 4.6).
Significantly, as we approach the end of the 1990s, more than a third of OECD countries have reached the
important benchmark of having fully digital fixed access networks.
For PTOs, digital networks have lower maintenance costs. Digital networks also enable PTOs to offer new
and improved services as well as to raise the quality of service. For example, the available data indicate a huge
increase in the take-up of ISDN which is enabled by digitalisation (Table 4.7). Much of the demand for ISDN
has been generated by the Internet. Greece is the only Member country which had not reached the halfway
mark in network digitalisation by the end of 1997. This has an additional significance for Greece, compared with
other OECD countries, because local calls served by digital exchanges are priced at measured rates while analogue lines are charged at a flat rate.
68
By way of contrast, Greece, along with Luxembourg, is the only OECD country to have every subscriber to
a mobile network using digital technology. The reason for this was that Greece delayed the start of mobile service until 1993 at which time operators commenced service with digital networks. For most other countries,
where service commenced much earlier with analogue networks, the transition to fully digital networks is occurring very rapidly. In 1995 less than half the OECD countries had more than 50 per cent of mobile subscribers on
digital networks. By the end of 1997 more than 60 per cent of subscribers were using digital networks. The relative digitalisation rates of fixed and mobile networks can be seen in Figure 4.4.
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Figure 4.4. Digitalisation in the OECD area, 1990-97
Access lines
Cellular mobile subscriptions
% digital
100
% digital
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1990
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: OECD.
While population coverage is very high in most OECD countries, the geographical coverage of mobile cellular terrestrial service, particularly in larger countries is usually more restricted. For the time being, analogue
networks still play an important role in serving rural and remote areas in a number of countries because they
have greater geographical reach. Satellite mobile services are available in most areas, but users pay much
higher connection and usage fees than for the terrestrial mobile services. It will be interesting to examine the
prices of a range of new mobile satellite services coming on line in the next few years.
Network Investment
Investment in telecommunication networks in the OECD area reached a record US$151 billion in 1997
(Table 4.8), with mobile investment of US$39.8 billion accounting for 26 per cent of total investment. The largest single increase was in the United States (Figure 4.5). This is primarily due to rapidly increasing investment
in building digital mobile communication networks. In 1997, PTOs in the United States invested US$13.4 billion
in constructing mobile networks, up from US$8.4 billion in 1996 and US$5.1 billion in 1995. In 1997 mobile
communication investment represented around one-quarter of all telecommunication investment in the
United States. In some areas of the United States, up to six infrastructure providers compete in the same market. The largest networks being deployed will allow companies such as AT&T, Sprint PCS and Nextel to offer
seamless service throughout most of the United States over their own networks.
There are two other major factors driving the investment increase in the United States. One is the increasing demand for capacity generated by the Internet. This includes several new market entrants building national
networks specifically aimed at the Internet, such as Qwest and Level3, and incumbents investing to upgrade
existing networks. The second factor is the increasing investment by long-distance carriers in local access networks following the passing of the new telecommunication law in 1996. One indication of this activity is the
OECD 1999
69
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 4.5. Telecommunications investment by region, 1985-97
Rest of OECD
EU
Japan
United States
Billion US$
160
Billion US$
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: OECD.
escalation of fibre optic cable deployment in the United States. Inter-exchange carriers increased the amount
of fibre optic cable, as measured by fibre miles, by 16 per cent in 1997. In the local exchange market, fibre
deployment was up 13 per cent by the same measure. The same impact, opening local access markets to
competition, has also encouraged large investment increases in countries such as Australia and the
United Kingdom. Mobile communication investment is also having a large impact on investment levels in these
and other countries.
The major decreases in capital expenditure are for incumbent PTOs that have increased investments prior
to the introduction of competition and have completed digitalisation, or other goals, prior to 1997. In these countries the full impact of new investment from market entrants has not yet been felt. In the case of Germany, the
programme to build state-of-the-art networks in the new federal states has been completed and the decrease
represents investment levels which are closer to historical trends. In 1997, the decrease in investment in Germany
and the increasing investment in Canada and the United States has meant that North America has a much larger
share of OECD investment than in the past (Table 4.9). It should be noted that investment data are also provided
in purchasing power parities. One reason for this is that many equipment purchases, and capitalised labour costs,
are made in local currency. Accordingly, PPPs provide another view of investment levels.
70
Much of the capital for the increased investment is being generated by market growth (Table 4.10).
Nevertheless, for those countries that have relatively low penetration levels and are in the process of rapidly
expanding their networks, investment as a percentage of total revenue is extremely high. For the
Czech Republic, the equivalent of 82 per cent of turnover was invested in 1997 to expand the network. In
Hungary, capital expenditure comprised the equivalent of more than half of total telecommunication revenue.
However, the lesson to be learnt from countries like Korea, which were in the same situation at an earlier stage,
shows that investment levels fall over time as the new network additions generate greater revenue. As is the
case in many other countries, the relatively high investment levels in Korea also relate to the building of new
mobile communication networks.
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
In terms of other ratios such as telecommunication investment as a percentage of gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) or investment per access line, the main drivers of increasing investment are either mobile communication, network upgrades due to increasing Internet demand or greater investment in local access markets. In
countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Greece, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States, which
qualify under one or all of these categories, the ratios of telecommunication investment to GFCF are much higher
than historical levels (Table 4.11, Figure 4.6). Similar explanations apply for countries with high ratios of investment per access line (Table 4.12, Figure 4.7) or access paths (Table 4.13) and investment per capita (Table 4.14,
Figure 4.8). The available data on investment in telecommunication exchanges and transmission is shown in
Table 4.15. There are significant reporting differences between countries in these categories.
Figure 4.6. Telecommunication investment as a percentage of PTO revenue
and of GFCF, 1997
Investment as a % of revenue (left scale)
Investment as a % of GFCF (right scale)
90
7
80
6
70
5
60
50
40
4
3
30
2
20
1
10
0
0
c
bli gary land orea ugal tralia dom land any land stria pain apan reece rland ECD nada Italy ance rway tates land ands rkey aland ark eden xico gium
pu
S
n Po
K
rt
J G tze
s
g
nm Sw
Tu Ze
Fr No d S
O Ca
Ire Germ Fin Au
Ice therl
Me Bel
Re Hu
i
Po Au Kin
De
w
h
ite
d
Sw
Ne
ec
Ne
Un
ite
Cz
Un
Source: OECD.
71
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 4.7. Public telecommunication investment per access line
US$
600
1987
1997
US$
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
d
l
n ece nd rea um ico
s
n
ry om blic tes nd ay CD tria ny ain ada taly and ark nce land
ey
de
a Sp an
nd
pa alia nd ga lan ga
a
I
la Ko
m
al
lgi Mex Turk
Ja ustr Irela ortu itzer Hun ingd epu d Sta Finl Norw OE Aus erm
Fra Ice herla Swe Gre Po
C
Ze Den
Be
K h R ite
P w
A
G
t
w
d
e
S
e
e
N
it
N
ec Un
Un Cz
Source: OECD.
Figure 4.8. Public telecommunication investment per capita
US$
300
1987
1997
US$
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
n
da ark tria nce en ary nd and blic Italy ands pain ece orea gium land xico rkey
nd alia tes ay om and nd any gal CD
pa
S Gre
Ja tzerla ustr Sta Norw ingd Irel Finla erm ortu OE Cana enm Aus Fra wed ung eala Icel epu
rl
K Bel
Po Me Tu
P
S
K
i
H wZ
A ited
D
G
the
w
d
hR
S
Ne
ite
ec
Ne
Un
z
n
C
U
72
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.1.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
World1
OECD % share in world total
Telecommunication access lines in the OECD area
1985
(’000)
1990
(’000)
1995
(’000)
1996
(’000)
1997
(’000)
6
2
3
11
1
2
2
23
25
3
7
3
3
15
1
2
2
28
32
3
9
3
4
17
2
3
2
32
42
5
2
9
3
4
18
2
3
2
33
44
5
2
9
3
4
18
3
3
2
33
45
5
3
501
729
061
814
332
543
189
031
589
117
739
103
703
17 396
45 370
7 539
154
3 495
5 823
1 260
1 758
2 487
1 400
9 340
5 242
3 277
2 248
20 921
118 275
329 437
407 364
80. 9
787
223
913
296
624
911
670
085
000
949
996
131
983
22 350
54 528
15 293
184
5 189
6 940
1 473
2 132
3 293
2 379
12 603
5 849
3 943
6 893
25 404
136 114
408 134
520 244
78. 5
078
749
632
567
398
203
810
600
000
163
157
149
1 313
24 854
61 106
21 684
234
8 801
8 000
1 660
2 431
5 728
3 643
15 095
6 013
4 410
14 184
29 409
159 735
493 808
694 919
71. 1
170
779
725
051
817
251
841
200
200
329
651
154
1 390
25 259
61 526
22 790
258
8 826
8 431
1 782
2 550
6 532
3 822
15 413
6 032
4 570
15 812
30 678
166 321
512 161
743 374
68. 9
350
726
939
460
280
339
861
700
200
431
182
155
1 500
25 698
60 186
23 795
280
9 254
8 860
1 840
2 734
7 510
4 002
15 854
6 010
4 690
17 584
31 430
179 176
534 025
780 658
68. 4
CAGR
(1987-92)
CAGR
(1992-97)
3.09
3.59
4.62
3.86
4.82
2.07
3.00
3.95
5.51
5.35
9.70
4.36
6.93
4.41
3.73
13.22
4.99
10.50
3.47
2.70
3.09
7.26
12.72
6.14
1.59
3.64
18.36
3.42
2.49
4.24
5.15
2.52
1.45
2.98
2.59
12.52
2.14
0.85
2.29
4.89
3.85
19.77
2.09
6.15
1.62
0.86
4.58
6.29
6.50
3.68
3.94
3.80
13.78
5.84
2.83
0.27
2.31
13.17
3.71
4.56
3.91
6.33
1.
To calculate the world total, where 1997 data was not available for non-OECD countries, 1996 data was used.
Source: OECD.
73
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.2.
Access lines per 100 inhabitants in the OECD area
Access lines
per 100 inhabitants
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD2
Residential
access lines
per 100 households
Telecommunication
access paths
per 100 inhabitants1
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
1996
1997
41.6
36.1
31.1
45.5
12.9
49.7
44.7
41.7
32.9
31.4
7.0
42.6
19.8
30.6
37.5
18.5
42.0
4.6
40.2
38.8
42.3
6.7
14.1
24.3
62.8
50.1
4.5
37.0
48.9
32.9
46.1
41.8
39.3
55.0
15.8
56.6
53.5
49.5
40.3
38.6
9.6
51.4
28.1
39.2
44.1
35.7
48.2
6.2
46.4
43.9
50.3
8.6
24.1
32.1
68.3
57.7
12.3
44.1
53.6
39.1
50.8
46.6
45.7
59.7
23.4
61.3
55.0
56.1
51.5
49.4
21.3
55.3
37.0
43.4
48.9
48.3
57.5
9.7
51.7
46.6
56.1
14.9
37.1
38.1
68.4
61.5
23.3
50.6
59.8
45.6
50.8
46.6
46.5
60.8
27.5
62.1
55.4
56.9
54.0
50.8
26.4
56.7
39.1
44.1
49.1
50.3
62.7
9.5
54.1
49.5
58.6
16.9
39.0
38.8
68.4
63.3
25.6
52.8
61.7
47.0
51.2
45.7
48.5
61.6
32.0
63.6
55.6
57.6
55.0
51.6
31.9
56.7
42.1
44.9
47.9
52.0
67.1
9.8
56.6
50.5
62.6
19.4
40.8
39.9
68.0
64.5
28.0
54.0
66.0
48.9
96.47
..
..
104.89
46.86
..
87.98
107.88
98.18
98.06
55.43
121.50
..
91.89
96.75
115.38
116.91
33.96
..
..
97.09
41.55
90.50
91.90
114.08
96.25
79.06
95.98
109.74
94.82
77.3
59.9
58.0
75.7
37.1
91.1
101.2
67.4
64.9
60.2
38.9
80.7
56.5
65.4
78.4
67.1
83.2
11.7
67.4
63.6
101.1
21.5
56.2
50.8
103.8
78.8
30.6
68.3
86.3
64.5
1.
Telecommunication access paths include the total of fixed access lines and cellular mobile subscribers.
2.
OECD average is a weighted average rather than a simple average.
Source: OECD.
74
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.3.
1990
1991
Cellular mobile subscribers in the OECD area
1992
1993
1994
Australia
184 943
291 459
440 103
682 000 1 096 836
Austria
73 698
115 402
172 453
221 450
278 749
Belgium
42 880
51 420
61 460
67 771
126 944
Canada
583 000
786 000 1 022 754 1 332 982 1 865 779
Czech Republic
0
1 242
4 651
11 151
27 357
Denmark
148 220
175 943
211 063
357 589
503 500
Finland
225 983
283 051
354 221
459 074
649 163
France
283 200
375 000
436 700
467 000
803 000
Germany
272 609
532 251
974 890 1 768 000 2 466 400
Greece
0
0
0
28 000
154 000
Hungary
2 645
8 477
23 292
45 712
142 000
Iceland
10 010
12 889
15 251
17 409
21 845
Ireland
25 000
32 000
44 000
57 065
81 666
Italy
266 000
568 000
783 000 1 206 975 2 239 700
Japan
868 078 1 378 108 1 712 545 2 131 367 4 331 369
Korea
80 005
166 198
271 868
471 784
960 258
Luxembourg
824
1 130
1 139
5 082
12 895
Mexico
34 944
170 080
311 510
385 341
572 000
Netherlands
79 000
115 000
166 000
216 000
321 000
New Zealand1
54 100
72 300
100 200
143 800
186 000
Norway
196 828
227 733
280 000
368 100
582 500
Poland
0
0
2 195
15 699
38 942
Portugal
6 500
12 600
37 262
101 231
173 508
Spain
54 700
108 451
180 296
257 261
411 930
Sweden
461 200
568 200
652 000
785 000 1 381 000
Switzerland
125 047
174 557
215 061
259 200
328 300
Turkey
31 809
47 828
61 395
84 187
175 471
United Kingdom
1 114 000 1 260 000 1 507 000 2 215 820 3 940 000
United States
5 283 055 7 557 148 11 032 753 14 712 000 22 550 000
OECD
10 508 278 15 092 467 21 075 062 28 874 050 46 422 112
World
11 181 443 16 261 015 23 204 028 34 119 149 55 371 796
OECD % share of world
total
94.0
92.8
90.8
84.6
83.8
1996
1997
CAGR
1992-97
341
3 882
535
598
000
478
780
3 420
725
200
370
1 316
596
2 162
900
2 440
000
5 782
000
700
000
473
883
46
183
290
400
6 413
023 20 876
293
3 180
868
45
513
1 021
012
316
311
422
300
1 261
000
216
845
663
955
2 997
000
2 492
000
662
549
806
000
6 817
000 44 042
382 114 027
047 144 214
097
4 748
804
1 164
172
974
318
4 206
315
521
592
1 444
574
2 344
139
5 754
200
8 175
000
900
000
705
302
65
000
510
412 11 733
820 38 253
989
6 895
000
67
900
1 746
104
1 688
800
476
445
1 676
900
812
651
1 506
212
4 330
000
3 169
700
1 044
339
1 609
000
8 344
992 55 312
777 170 182
723 207 940
477 60.92
270 46.51
494 73.80
992 32.69
469
..
016 46.90
111 45.93
539 67.48
500 53.01
000
..
000 97.79
746 33.94
747 63.29
904 71.84
000 86.12
477 90.92
208 126.04
972 41.18
550 59.03
200 36.58
763 43.04
000
..
958 109.59
282 88.85
000 37.19
400 37.17
808 92.19
000 40.82
293 38.05
176 51.85
211 55.05
80.4
79.1
81.8
1995
1 920
383
235
2 589
45
822
1 017
1 439
3 733
550
261
30
132
3 925
10 204
1 641
26
688
537
328
980
75
340
928
2 008
446
436
5 670
31 400
72 798
90 582
–2.06
Note: New Zealand in 1996 and 1997 is for Telecom New Zealand only.
Source: OECD.
75
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.4. Cellular mobile development, 1997
Australia
Austria1
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden1
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD6
Subscribers
per 100 inhabitants
Per cent
of population
coverage
26.0
14.3
9.6
14.1
5.1
27.5
45.6
9.8
9.9
8.6
7.1
24.0
14.4
20.5
30.4
15.1
16.1
1.9
10.8
13.1
38.4
2.1
15.4
10.9
35.8
14.4
2.6
14.3
20.4
15.6
..
93
95
..
95
100
100
98
99
97
97
99
96
97
98
97
99
..
98
95
98
75
100
99
96
98
61
98
..
95
Ratio
of mobile growth
to mainline growth,
1996-971
4.8 :
..
2.3 :
1.9 :
0.7 :
1.5 :
9.1 :
6.6 :
2.4 :
2.0 :
0.4 :
11.0 :
2.0 :
12.1 :
..
3.7 :
1.0 :
1.7 :
3.2 :
0.9 :
2.3 :
0.6 :
4.7 :
3.0 :
..
3.2 :
0.5 :
2.0 :
0.9 :
2.6 :
Investment
in mobile infrastructure
(million US$)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
1
13
39
656.52
344.26
590.652
448.38
337.40
124.173
226.72
762.55
153.40
498.35
162.85
2.52
205.75
017.03
225.62
036.56
..
84.294
121.66
..
134.90
..
340.055
478.14
306.61
171.03
..
862.52
484.39
776.31
1.
The number of access lines in Austria, Japan and Sweden have decreased from 1996-97.
2.
Investment for Mobistar only.
3.
Investment for Sonofon only.
4.
Investment for Iusacell only.
5.
Investment for Airtel only.
6.
The OECD average for population coverage is a straight average.
Source: OECD.
76
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.5.
Digitalisation in the OECD area
Fixed network (percentage of digital access lines)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Mobile network
(percentage of subscribers to digital networks)
1993
1995
1997
1997
40.00
54.00
54.00
84.74
10.00
46.00
62.00
86.00
41.00
22.00
27.00
66.00
71.00
57.00
72.00
58.80
82.00
68.00
93.00
95.00
60.00
9.50
59.00
41.00
67.00
48.00
74.00
75.00
82.00
69.25
62.00
72.00
66.00
94.16
17.00
61.00
90.00
100.00
56.30
37.14
53.00
100.00
79.00
76.00
90.00
63.40
100.00
87.60
100.00
97.00
82.00
48.00
70.00
56.00
91.00
66.00
77.00
88.00
90.00
81.65
84.00
82.00
83.10
..
54.60
86.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
47.07
70.00
100.00
92.00
94.00
100.00
66.77
100.00
90.10
100.00
100.00
100.00
58.00
88.30
80.80
99.10
99.00
81.60
100.00
94.50
89.22
51.46
78.50
98.19
..
87.99
84.00
77.95
97.83
94.18
100.00
88.79
62.16
64.76
71.08
95.39
77.35
100.00
0.00
84.66
..
76.88
..
99.50
74.58
76.18
85.33
92.13
78.85
11.67
60.48
Note: OECD average is weighted.
Source: OECD.
77
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.6.
1993
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
45
4
56
1
9
164
34
102
2
8
1 333
168
19
8
12
11
24
25
214
20
116
10 039
..
298
985
462
408
300
024
000
300
745
..
156
600
000
300
789
..
701
000
..
400
..
..
857
000
051
700
363
000
Deployment of fibre optic cable in the OECD area
1994
64
7
62
39
10
327
53
114
4
9
1 719
212
26
16
12
6
29
24
166
11 872
..
558
776
553
187
300
416
700
700
615
..
180
600
000
629
246
..
796
..
..
700
..
580
339
..
..
850
804
000
1995
92
11
78
90
425
1 100
124
8
11
1 964
248
38
21
13
9
36
28
284
13 928
..
320
176
752
336
..
955
000
600
000
..
267
200
000
731
928
..
610
..
..
800
..
607
041
..
..
300
410
000
1996
121
17
83
162
511
1 300
137
9
2 196
299
48
26
9
43
31
357
16 599
..
255
323
292
409
..
214
000
600
570
..
342
..
000
010
742
..
510
..
..
..
..
861
086
..
..
000
826
000
1997
Compound annual
growth rate
1993-97 (%)
19 887
152 584
..
..
438 634
..
647 121
1 700 000
149 200
11 240
..
177
40 015
2 444 000
366 866
76 114
1 260
31 000
..
..
..
..
10 536
47 030
..
..
36 573
471 627
19 263 000
..
35.5
..
..
320.1
..
40.9
165.9
9.9
42.3
..
3.2
46.9
16.4
21.5
40.0
..
37.4
..
..
..
..
..
17.3
..
..
15.3
41.9
17.7
Measure
..
Fibre km
Fibre km
..
Fibre km
Km
Fibre km
..
Cable km
Cable km
..
Km
Fibre km
Fibre km
Km
Km
..
..
..
..
Cable km
Km
..
..
..
Km
Km
Cable miles
1.
KT and Dacom only.
Source: OECD.
78
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.7.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
ISDN subscribers in the OECD area
1993
1995
7 500
904
1 163
1 400
0
2 354
545
103 000
230 800
0
0
0
0
3 989
215 573
0
0
0
1 175
350
0
0
0
138
..
7 960
0
50 000
264 323
891 174
..
16 813
28 071
..
0
14 082
6 416
288 800
881 400
303
..
0
0
49 061
463 566
4 309
4 556
0
23 700
..
20 052
82
7 891
10 828
19 700
69 459
0
132 500
510 652
2 552 241
1997
2
2
1
7
..
85 683
96 548
..
196
..
57 855
..
887 200
2 564
..
..
..
335 000
065 288
21 110
24 479
0
279 000
..
..
..
47 845
..
..
207 000
0
..
174 950
284 718
CAGR
1993-97 (%)
..
873.6
811.1
..
..
..
930.3
..
253.7
..
..
..
..
816.4
209.5
..
..
0.0
1 440.9
..
..
..
..
..
..
410.0
0.0
..
110.8
185.9
OECD.
79
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.8.
Public telecommunication investment in the OECD area
In millions of US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
Average
1988-90
Average
1991-93
Average
1994-96
1997
1997
(PPP)
2 280.92
965.23
614.46
3 477.43
145.21
490.05
669.28
4 549.62
9 278.38
290.75
215.85
11.90
221.28
7 365.13
15 388.54
2 586.56
39.10
1 309.22
1 143.76
363.11
499.73
135.50
562.45
4 517.02
1 079.88
1 597.28
547.81
4 821.75
23 401.08
88 568.28
2 125.90
1 308.06
779.92
3 338.39
224.08
417.26
510.12
6 077.23
15 791.67
807.99
425.59
23.26
256.75
8 659.33
20 338.83
3 167.28
72.25
2 099.95
1 572.84
367.84
482.75
488.75
970.89
4 298.41
1 164.19
1 786.77
787.12
3 765.57
26 063.91
108 172.88
3 054.75
1 282.99
927.65
2 784.15
817.98
551.12
632.26
6 175.88
12 685.72
751.24
703.69
30.04
329.26
5 065.12
33 112.64
4 534.67
96.37
1 510.57
1 513.54
339.55
603.49
895.37
1 001.40
3 993.94
1 196.67
1 762.60
498.77
4 868.66
37 751.04
129 471.12
4 017.55
1 000.00
537.44
4 000.00
1 030.76
670.81
832.66
6 424.36
11 942.33
841.83
1 090.38
28.51
587.57
5 558.43
32 812.40
3 048.50
..
979.18
1 493.59
387.97
786.94
1 007.02
1 419.76
3 647.54
966.51
1 637.24
546.97
9 957.45
54 224.00
151 477.69
4 162.80
903.70
525.11
4 735.04
2 635.09
533.09
739.55
5 760.22
10 354.00
1 025.61
2 413.58
25.97
578.80
5 942.25
24 357.67
7 135.72
..
1 759.41
1 421.46
399.32
604.26
2 156.86
2 022.29
4 306.45
767.88
1 181.09
1 176.56
9 388.89
54 224.00
151 236.69
OECD.
Table 4.9.
Telecommunication investment by region
In millions of US$
Europe
(per cent)
North America
(per cent)
Asia/Pacific
(per cent)
EU
(per cent)
OECD
Source:
Average 1988-90
Average 1991-93
Average 1994-96
1997
1997 (PPP)
39 752
45
28 188
32
20 619
23
36 608
41
88 568
51 160
47
31 502
29
26 000
24
46 451
43
108 173
47 279
37
42 046
32
41 042
32
41 031
32
129 471
53 015
35
59 203
39
40 266
27
45 456
30
151 478
56 620
37
60 718
40
36 056
24
43 665
29
151 237
OECD.
80
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.10. Public telecommunication investment as a percentage of revenue
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
1986-88
1989-91
1992-94
1995
1996
1997
36.41
40.34
24.99
27.12
..
27.72
33.81
31.61
42.01
20.46
66.47
18.15
24.00
39.99
34.19
56.03
34.71
56.60
21.78
21.16
26.93
..
31.82
45.52
30.56
36.26
65.18
20.80
16.86
25.79
26.82
40.10
28.15
30.33
21.83
20.81
32.81
27.23
45.36
33.39
70.84
16.51
21.02
55.57
34.30
57.66
36.00
39.13
28.57
28.48
20.95
25.55
53.73
65.44
23.85
38.89
28.95
18.84
16.33
27.50
22.23
40.56
23.88
26.41
61.29
14.29
28.01
25.80
40.96
45.60
61.28
27.29
17.23
38.00
33.07
44.05
30.22
29.52
23.56
21.22
18.27
40.77
30.54
36.36
20.47
26.50
31.54
13.28
16.05
24.98
25.31
37.10
20.72
21.70
79.56
12.77
18.86
22.95
24.45
24.10
45.25
22.91
16.36
22.93
32.93
41.13
21.82
19.90
19.30
14.03
21.61
41.16
33.57
33.38
18.20
22.84
24.42
14.43
19.43
23.99
29.44
18.89
24.59
22.51
97.76
22.01
32.10
19.50
33.74
23.61
61.59
17.16
24.06
22.37
33.88
39.15
49.36
11.88
16.99
22.40
21.11
46.03
24.67
32.96
16.31
23.90
16.98
23.83
20.06
25.42
29.27
26.78
12.66
23.50
81.70
14.51
27.12
22.43
27.39
25.62
51.69
18.88
27.56
23.28
29.84
33.51
..
12.75
18.83
17.27
21.81
38.82
31.00
26.39
14.00
24.12
17.31
27.87
21.12
24.33
OECD.
Table 4.11. Public telecommunication investment as a percentage of GFCF
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
OECD.
OECD 1999
Average 1988-90
Average 1991-93
Average 1994-96
1997
3.44
3.06
1.90
2.96
1.56
2.04
2.13
2.08
3.55
1.82
2.87
1.05
3.25
3.89
1.71
3.53
1.86
3.36
2.16
4.32
1.92
..
3.65
4.64
2.53
2.97
1.90
2.74
2.41
2.53
3.59
3.13
1.99
3.17
2.79
1.60
2.63
2.43
3.73
4.22
5.91
2.05
3.25
4.11
1.75
2.75
2.47
3.13
2.57
5.24
1.97
3.73
4.76
3.70
3.07
3.22
2.07
2.35
2.61
2.64
4.11
2.47
2.07
2.76
5.26
1.72
3.56
2.36
2.64
3.51
8.29
2.77
3.22
2.70
2.39
2.88
2.85
2.22
2.09
2.80
2.01
4.44
4.35
3.65
3.68
2.89
1.14
2.90
3.05
2.73
4.88
2.01
..
3.49
6.45
1.96
4.13
2.69
2.83
3.41
..
..
4.10
2.91
2.77
3.06
..
1.25
2.05
2.95
2.23
3.57
5.59
3.33
3.10
3.31
1.09
5.01
3.81
3.25
81
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.12. Public telecommunication investment per access line
In US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
Average 1988-90
Average 1991-93
Average 1994-96
1997
1997 (PPP)
297.59
310.45
164.29
238.51
93.15
171.92
260.01
168.81
313.01
76.85
233.78
96.55
243.29
346.83
294.97
194.55
222.50
272.32
170.74
255.00
241.07
43.38
267.57
383.11
188.73
421.82
92.90
195.04
176.17
226.94
256.60
377.67
183.41
205.32
122.51
138.88
186.12
202.14
443.59
180.48
325.97
166.46
231.45
366.16
353.22
167.66
353.70
308.82
212.55
243.21
212.93
123.02
324.37
311.81
196.26
426.59
79.07
142.76
181.48
244.93
338.18
343.37
200.45
157.98
333.14
172.64
224.42
190.22
301.80
145.71
320.15
200.01
250.51
203.54
544.11
208.47
404.32
173.50
187.16
202.43
245.54
155.56
274.63
265.04
199.31
396.21
34.42
165.16
236.19
261.98
429.68
268.40
108.82
216.69
314.27
200.90
291.04
190.63
264.21
155.01
342.65
183.53
391.71
216.30
545.18
128.12
..
105.81
168.58
210.85
287.83
134.09
354.72
230.07
160.82
349.09
31.11
316.81
302.63
283.65
445.22
242.55
106.33
256.51
803.42
159.66
258.50
170.93
229.07
188.85
758.47
167.20
385.86
231.23
404.71
299.88
..
190.13
160.44
217.02
221.02
287.20
505.26
271.63
127.77
251.83
66.91
298.72
302.63
283.20
OECD.
82
OECD 1999
Network Dimensions and Development
Table 4.13. Public telecommunication investment per access path
In US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Average 1988-90
Average 1991-93
Average 1994-96
1997
1997 (PPP)
293.62
305.18
162.95
232.40
93.15
164.73
244.54
167.65
311.14
76.85
233.55
90.57
239.35
344.85
291.99
193.87
221.84
271.47
169.32
249.57
222.58
43.38
267.18
382.07
177.82
413.50
92.60
188.32
171.49
222.83
242.80
360.02
180.85
192.90
122.13
128.28
164.22
199.32
430.39
180.11
319.64
150.14
222.55
353.42
342.86
165.01
349.50
296.23
207.89
227.36
188.64
122.83
319.01
307.75
176.38
405.64
78.56
134.31
168.46
233.46
269.55
308.64
189.01
137.50
321.22
135.30
154.44
181.50
275.61
133.58
282.61
163.97
222.13
174.19
455.72
191.50
361.47
159.56
178.52
170.65
177.54
152.64
247.93
241.83
150.25
357.69
33.33
139.28
196.11
226.37
284.96
204.49
90.89
176.47
271.16
140.25
159.97
162.83
223.74
132.97
280.51
128.95
292.21
148.49
333.33
99.33
..
89.01
141.59
167.50
178.41
121.01
257.70
180.71
105.30
285.51
28.50
250.35
231.24
215.10
295.27
184.80
88.80
208.90
693.20
111.46
142.08
146.00
193.98
162.00
620.91
117.47
287.85
158.75
247.44
232.51
..
159.94
134.75
172.40
137.00
259.18
367.06
213.36
83.66
205.97
61.30
236.06
231.24
214.76
Note: Access paths include access lines and cellular mobile subscriptions.
Source: OECD.
83
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 4.14. Public telecommunication investment per capita
In US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
Average 1988-90
Average 1991-93
Average 1994-96
1997
1997 (PPP)
137.01
125.99
61.91
126.84
14.09
95.52
134.70
80.66
117.56
28.61
20.73
47.22
62.98
129.27
125.02
60.90
103.72
16.03
77.01
108.90
118.34
3.57
56.93
115.43
126.90
235.91
9.96
84.04
93.02
85.58
122.88
166.98
77.85
117.24
21.77
80.69
101.33
106.05
196.66
78.29
41.46
89.34
73.10
151.63
163.73
72.51
184.77
24.31
103.71
107.11
112.84
12.75
98.62
108.95
134.47
256.36
13.56
65.13
100.48
102.12
170.97
159.52
91.61
94.71
79.70
105.53
123.83
106.30
155.51
71.87
69.63
111.80
92.87
88.55
264.75
100.98
236.78
16.57
97.78
95.36
139.33
23.22
102.02
100.79
136.21
246.01
8.20
83.83
141.35
119.65
220.14
122.53
52.75
133.59
100.69
127.82
161.93
109.74
145.30
80.01
109.15
104.03
165.09
97.11
261.17
66.68
..
10.39
95.37
106.56
180.33
26.06
144.84
91.84
109.28
225.02
8.71
171.09
199.61
138.25
228.10
110.73
51.54
158.14
257.41
101.58
143.83
98.39
125.98
97.47
241.60
94.78
162.63
103.81
193.87
156.08
..
18.66
90.76
109.67
138.46
55.83
206.31
108.43
86.82
162.33
18.74
161.32
199.61
138.03
OECD.
Table 4.15. Expenditure on switching and transmission infrastructure, 1997
Telecommunication exchanges
Australia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Korea1
Norway
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom2
United States3
Transmission
Total
In millions
of US$
As a percentage
of capital
expenditure
In millions
of US$
As a percentage
of capital
expenditure
In millions
of US$
As a percentage
of capital
expenditure
633.26
176.39
117.46
91.67
1 118.61
362.64
163.46
859.31
448.81
837.97
5 668.37
15.76
17.11
10.77
15.60
20.12
11.90
20.77
52.49
82.05
8.42
10.45
478.10
4.40
36.01
33.94
2 360.54
982.70
..
..
43.48
1995.09
7 118.68
11.90
0.43
3.30
5.78
42.47
32.24
..
..
7.95
20.04
13.13
1 111.36
180.78
153.47
125.61
3 479.15
1 345.34
..
..
492.30
2 833.06
12 787.04
27.66
17.54
14.07
21.38
62.59
44.13
..
..
90.00
28.45
23.58
1.
KT only.
2.
BT only.
3.
US data are for local exchange carriers reporting to the FCC only.
Source: OECD.
84
OECD 1999
Chapter 5
INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE
This chapter examines available indicators for Internet infrastructure although, in fact, much of the communication infrastructure which provides the building blocks for the Internet is examined in other chapters. For
example, most consumers accessing the Internet via a dial-up service, use a personal computer with a modem
via a public switched telecommunication network access line. Users accessing the Internet via higher speeds
use services such as ISDN and leased lines. As for access lines, data on these services are presented in the
previous chapter. Similarly, the impact of the Internet on the size of the communication market and investment
in networks is considered in earlier chapters. The indicators examined in this chapter are those Internet infrastructures which overlay and augment telecommunication networks. This includes data on Internet hosts, the
domain name system and infrastructures supporting electronic commerce.
Number of Internet Users
No official data are yet available on how many people access the Internet on a global basis. However, several developments are taking place which will, in the future, lead to a better understanding of the level of
Internet access. The first development is that PTOs and ISPs are increasingly publishing data on the number of
their subscribers. In some cases, these data are aggregated to provide a detailed picture of business and dialup Internet subscribers. In this context, a leading example is the Korea Network Information Centre (KR-NIC),
the organisation which administers domain names and IP addresses in Korea. KR-NIC surveys Korean Internet
Service providers (ISPs) to determine the number of their business connections and dial-up subscribers and
is then able to publish national Internet subscriber statistics for Korea.
The second development is that government statistical agencies are undertaking surveys of Internet
access in a growing number of OECD countries. As the harmonization of definitions increases, and more OECD
countries undertake these surveys, a more comprehensive overview of Internet access will emerge.
The third development is that directory services may emerge, as they did with the telephone network.
Ericsson and a Swedish university are conducting trials of Internet directory technology which enables users to
access information on Internet users in Sweden. The technology enables users to search for mobile and fixed
telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web sites that are contained in different databases in different formats. Rather than containing the actual data, the system acts as a gateway to all Internet operators and service
providers’ directories. Such systems may be very important for electronic commerce, supporting services such
as Internet telephony and, as a by-product, may make available aggregated data on Internet access. In the
meantime, the best available data on Internet infrastructure is provided by online surveys and the institutions
administering core Internet functions, such as the domain name system.
Internet Hosts
By July 1998 there were more than 35 million Internet hosts in the OECD area (Table 5.1). The number of
Internet hosts continues to grow at a fast pace. Between January and July 1998, the number of hosts in the OECD
area grew by 24 per cent. Surveys of hosts are the most common indicator used to measure Internet development and are undertaken by Network Wizards and RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens). Network Wizards define an
OECD 1999
85
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 5.1. Internet hosts in OECD countries
Number of hosts
under domain
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States (.us, .mil, .edu, .gov)
.com
.net
.org
.int
.gov
.mil
.us
.edu
Total OECD (incl. gTLDs)
EU
Non-OECD
World
Source:
Hosts per
1 000 inhabitants
Growth rate
(January-July)
% of total gTLD
registrations
(.com, .net, .org)
Hosts including
gTLDs weighted
by domain
registrations
per 1 000 inhabitants
July 1998
January 1998
July 1998
January 1998
(July 1998)
665
109
87
839
52
159
450
333
994
26
46
17
38
243
168
121
4
41
381
169
286
77
39
168
319
114
24
987
618
201
283
519
750
132
153
027
65
190
513
431
154
40
73
20
44
320
352
174
6
83
514
177
312
98
45
243
380
205
27
190
738
301
054
644
327
202
760
571
672
293
527
045
340
061
987
678
840
725
200
800
145
949
660
753
441
798
113
436
634
593
861
663
298
570
863
971
853
725
153
204
216
36.5
13.4
8.6
28.0
5.1
30.4
87.5
5.7
12.1
2.6
4.6
63.7
10.8
4.2
9.3
2.7
10.2
0.4
24.3
46.5
65.6
2.0
4.0
4.3
36.1
15.8
0.4
17.0
24.4
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
41.1
16.2
15.1
34.3
6.4
36.3
99.9
7.4
14.0
3.8
7.4
75.5
12.6
5.6
10.8
3.8
14.7
0.9
32.9
48.8
71.6
2.6
4.6
6.1
43.0
28.3
0.4
20.5
28.5
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
12.8
21.1
74.9
22.5
25.1
19.4
14.1
29.3
16.0
48.8
60.6
18.5
16.8
31.8
15.7
43.4
43.8
101.5
35.0
5.0
9.1
27.3
14.1
44.1
19.3
79.1
12.4
20.5
16.9
25.6
33.5
24.1
26.9
23.1
23.7
21.0
13.2
0.51
0.18
0.22
6.75
0.02
0.44
0.13
1.31
1.96
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.76
0.76
0.42
0.02
0.09
0.80
0.06
0.16
0.02
0.05
0.83
0.95
0.53
0.20
2.57
75.90
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
46.1
20.2
19.0
74.9
6.7
51.3
104.3
11.4
18.3
4.4
7.8
77.7
17.2
8.0
11.9
5.5
23.8
1.1
42.1
51.7
78.0
2.6
5.4
9.9
62.4
41.4
1.0
28.4
78.8
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
629
444
371
000
26.2
11.6
0.2
5.1
32.5
14.4
0.3
6.3
24.1
23.4
17.6
23.8
95.79
10.34
4.21
100.00
31.8
19.3
0.4
6.3
1
6
8
5
497
1 099
1 076
3 944
28
4
1
29
593
343
076
670
403
154
938
141
498
358
044
306
926
917
082
450
406
250
956
932
273
659
172
264
338
594
533
913
065
816
786
733
382
511
568
862
672
646
186
583
967
902
988
098
000
1
1
1
1
7
10
7
612
1 359
1 302
4 464
35
5
1
36
473
361
265
739
Network Wizards and OECD.
Internet host as a domain name that has an associated IP address record. This would be any computer system
connected to the Internet (via full- or part-time, direct or dial-up connections), such as oecd.org and
www.oecd.org.
86
The survey by Network Wizards includes all country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) and generic Top
Level Domains (gTLDs) and is undertaken every six months. The RIPE survey is undertaken monthly but is limited to ccTLD registrations in their service area. While both surveys are much appreciated by the Internet community, the results need to be qualified and have several limitations. The first qualification that needs to be
made is that host data do not indicate the total number of users who can access the Internet. The second caveat
is that these surveys do not reach every host on the Internet, as access to some hosts is blocked by company
fire-walls. Recognising the limitation of this second factor, Network Wizards changed their methodology for the
survey undertaken in January 1998 to enable access to a greater number of hosts. Notwithstanding this change,
surveys of Internet hosts may only be interpreted as the minimum size of the “public Internet”, as it is impossible to determine the number of users accessing services via each host.
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Internet surveys of hosts and servers provide one indicator of Internet development and may be used as
one potential indicator of comparative Internet development across countries. The main limitations are not
reaching all hosts or servers, and the structure of the domain name system being such that there is no guarantee
that all hosts under a particular domain are located in a certain geographical location. For example, the reachable hosts of a user in France, registering under a gTLD, would appear under domains such as .com or .net
rather than .fr. Nor is it necessarily the fact that a host using a second-level domain under .fr will be physically
located in France. That being said, the OECD’s observations, from a series of traceroutes to Web sites under
ccTLDs, are that by far the majority of hosts using ccTLDs are located in the country concerned.
In September 1997, Imperative Inc. published active domains registration under gTLDs for OECD countries. The availability of gTLD registrations by country presents the possibility of redistributing Internet hosts
under domain names such as .com to individual countries. The most simple option is to weight the number of
hosts under gTLDs according to the number of gTLD registrations from a particular country. In other words, if
5 per cent of the total gTLD registrations are from a particular country, then 5 per cent of the total number of
hosts surveyed under gTLDs are reallocated to that country.
This methodology could, no doubt, be subject to a number of caveats. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to
assume that this approach gives a more accurate distribution of Internet hosts in OECD countries than allocating
all hosts under gTLD registrations to the United States. The results of the weighted methodology are shown in
Table 5.1. Most striking is the case of Canada where, because of the popularity of .com with Canadian users, there
was a large increase in the number of hosts over the number of hosts surveyed solely under .ca. Other countries
recording significant increases, albeit from smaller base numbers of hosts, include France, Luxembourg, Spain
and Turkey. The countries for which this approach made very little difference are those where users mainly rely
on ccTLD registrations, such as the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Poland.
Figure 5.1. Internet hosts per 1 000 inhabitants (incl. .com, .net, .org), July 1998
Under domain
Under gTLDs
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
n
d
a
y
y
e
s
n
a
d
s ay
d
d
d
d
o
D
m
rk
in ly
rg
al ce
lic
ia
ia
ry
m
lan tate rw celan anad wede ealan nma stral rland erlan OEC gdo bou ustr lgiu rman relan Japa ranc Spa Ita nga pub Kore rtug ree olan exic urke
T
F
I
G
P
I
A Be Ge
M
Fin ed S No
C
S
Z
Po
Kin xem
Hu h Re
De Au ethe witz
w
d
it
u
e
c
e
S
n
N
L
e
it
N
U
Cz
Un
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
87
Communications Outlook 1999
The additional hosts under .com allocated to Finland make it the first country in the OECD area to pass
100 hosts per 1 000 inhabitants (Figure 5.1), followed by the United States, Norway, Iceland, Canada and
Sweden. Denmark and New Zealand are the other two countries to have reached 50 hosts per 1 000 inhabitants
by July 1998.
Internet Servers
The Netcraft Web Server Survey is a survey of Web server software usage on computers connected to the
Internet. Netcraft collect and collate as many host names providing an http service as their survey can find, and
systematically poll each one with an HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request for the server name. A host
name is the first part (before the first dot) of a host’s domain name (e.g. www).
In the July 1998 survey, Netcraft received responses from a total of 2 594 623 Web servers (Table 5.2). The
growth rate for the first half of 1998 was 41 per cent. Some 96 per cent of these servers are in the OECD area. By
far the largest number of Web servers are under .com, which has 60 per cent of all Web servers. As for Internet
Table 5.2.
Number
of web servers
under domain,
January 1998
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States (.us, .mil, .gov, .edu)
.com
.net
.org
.int
.gov
.mil
.us
.edu
OECD total (excl. .com, .net, .org)
EU
Non-OECD
World total
88
Source:
29
10
5
20
4
16
6
11
80
1
2
3
1
11
22
523
592
232
089
780
871
363
294
673
609
408
690
841
335
596
935
718
932
143
751
838
883
354
466
946
842
430
089
237
484
736
409
44
505
655
522
538
497
312
83
1 834
460
526
594
710
1
19
25
4
4
19
7
6
5
4
6
22
20
3
105
47
1 096
78
86
Web servers in OECD countries
Growth rate
January July
% Share
of OECD
Web servers
under domain,
per 1 000 inhabitants,
July 1998
Estimated
web servers
per 1 000 inhabitants
(including
.com, .net, .org)
3
1
16
23
258
561
922
256
175
173
118
497
086
099
016
784
070
254
745
683
834
614
187
915
695
955
911
522
946
877
740
724
458
172
241
265
58
541
685
189
395
16.0
28.0
32.3
30.7
29.2
102.6
11.9
46.1
58.8
30.5
25.2
13.6
12.4
15.1
35.7
–5.1
16.2
–6.4
57.7
2.1
12.5
18.2
12.8
16.3
8.7
19.4
9.0
25.3
21.6
44.1
69.2
53.1
31.8
1.0
1.8
40.5
3.8
5.2
2.1
1.1
4.0
0.9
5.2
1.1
2.5
19.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
3.4
5.3
0.7
0.1
0.7
4.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.1
3.8
3.8
0.6
20.1
8.8
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1.88
1.66
0.68
0.88
0.60
6.51
1.38
0.28
1.56
0.20
0.30
2.86
0.58
0.39
0.28
0.10
2.00
0.05
1.93
2.17
1.76
0.18
0.50
0.19
2.82
3.42
0.06
2.26
0.21
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.41
2.08
1.09
5.17
0.64
8.11
1.85
0.71
2.01
0.26
0.35
3.09
1.07
0.64
0.39
0.28
2.96
0.07
2.90
2.48
2.44
0.19
0.59
0.59
4.86
4.81
0.12
3.10
5.53
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
656
432
105
2 594
075
904
460
623
31.9
38.5
26.2
41.4
100.0
66.0
..
..
0.60
1.16
0.02
0.44
2.27
1.69
0.04
0.56
Number
of web servers
under domain,
July 1998
34
13
6
26
6
34
7
16
128
2
3
2
22
34
4
4
30
7
7
6
4
7
24
24
3
131
57
1 580
133
132
Netcraft at http://www.netcraft.co.uk/.
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
hosts, it is possible to provide penetration by domain and to weight by the number of gTLD registrations
(Figure 5.2). The country providing the most responses, on a per capita basis, is Denmark. This is because there
are many small, virtually hosted sites in Denmark. Netcraft report that, while this is a characteristic of many
countries, it is particularly true of Denmark and the Netherlands. TeleDanmark and Cybercity operate two of
the largest virtual hosting sites in Denmark.
Figure 5.2. Web servers per 1 000 inhabitants (incl. .com, .net, .org), July 1998
Under domain
Under gTLDs
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
l
n
c
n
y
d
ark tes ada de and om land urg nds lan way alia CD tria any land ium and nce Italy ubli tuga pain apa gary orea eece oland urke exico
S
J
n
K Gr
nm Sta Can Swe tzerl ingd Ice mbo herla Zea Nor ustr OE Aus erm Fin Belg Irel Fra
T
ep Por
P
M
R
Hu
i
A
e
K
t
G
De ited
x Ne ew
w ed
h
u
c
S
n
L
e
t
N
i
U
Cz
Un
Source: OECD.
The Netcraft Server surveys also provide one of the best available indicators of the growth of electronic
commerce on the Internet. Whereas, the best-known search engines only cover http sites, Netcraft also undertakes a secure socket layer (SSL) survey. The SSL protocol was developed by Netscape for encrypted transmission over TCP/IP networks. It sets up a secure end-to-end link over which http or any other application protocol
can operate. The most common application of SSL is https for ssl-encrypted http which enables electronic commerce to take place.
In August 1998, Netcraft received responses from more than 424 000 Web sites using encryption. However,
most of these responses are excluded, in terms of electronic commerce Web sites, because they do not have
third-party certification. Sites without third-party certification are most likely not engaging in electronic commerce because of the warning message that is generated for users. The key element for electronic commerce
is third-party certification with matching certificate. Netcraft say plausible reasons for the large number of
responses, where the name on the certificate did not match the site’s domain name, might include Web sites
run from virtual hosting configurations where the provider sets up all customers with http services, with customers buying certificates when they begin to use the facilities. A second example is sites using generic test
certificates to experiment with SSL. Netcraft adds that sites where the certificate issuer is not a known
certificate authority are typically those where the site has generated and signed its own certificate, which is
OECD 1999
89
Communications Outlook 1999
acceptable for prototyping or where trust is not required outside a limited group of people, such as a company
or collaborative project. This is likely to be more commonplace on internal networks than on externally visible
Internet sites.
The major electronic commerce uses of secure server software are for encrypted credit card transactions
over the Internet. The most common non-retail use of SSL is subscription access to privileged information. For
example, many of the leading US investment banks disseminate research over SSL, and there are some applications for virtual private networks or closed-access communities. At this stage Netcraft report relatively low
usage by government.
By excluding sites which do not have third-party certification, it is possible to obtain an indication of the
number of electronic commerce sites in each OECD country. Unlike the Internet host and general Netcraft Web
server survey, the SSL survey does not use the domain name system to categorise location but rather the actual
address of the business. In August 1998, there were over 22 200 Web sites engaged in electronic commerce in
the OECD area (Table 5.3). This number had grown by 128 per cent over the previous twelve months. The
United States is a clear leader, with three-quarters of all electronic commerce sites but its overall share is falling
as electronic commerce picks up speed in other countries. Albeit starting from smaller bases, the number of
electronic commerce sites in some OECD countries grew by more than 300 per cent over the previous year.
Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have the highest number of electronic commerce Web sites after
the United States. In relative terms, the United States also leads the OECD with more than six electronic commerce sites for every 100 000 inhabitants followed by Iceland, Australia and Canada (Figure 5.3).
Table 5.3.
Secure Web servers for electronic commerce
September 1997
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
gTLDs not identified by location
OECD
EU
Non-OECD
World
90
Source:
7
9
1
10
249
26
21
547
6
11
20
65
147
5
7
10
17
88
196
19
3
22
75
58
23
6
16
120
53
58
4
353
513
18
756
020
396
152
August 1998
1
16
22
2
23
677
106
52
023
26
53
81
250
558
15
19
13
61
193
528
41
12
32
148
101
64
27
31
265
184
176
14
821
663
7
241
830
983
224
% of OECD
September 1997
% of OECD
August 1998
2.55
0.27
0.22
5.61
0.06
0.11
0.21
0.67
1.51
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.17
0.90
2.01
0.19
0.03
0.23
0.77
0.59
0.24
0.06
0.16
1.23
0.54
0.59
0.04
3.62
77.01
0.18
100.00
10.46
3.04
0.48
0.23
4.60
0.12
0.24
0.36
1.12
2.51
0.07
0.09
0.06
0.27
0.87
2.37
0.18
0.05
0.14
0.67
0.45
0.29
0.12
0.14
1.19
0.83
0.79
0.06
3.69
74.92
0.03
100.00
12.72
Per
100 000 inhabitants,
August 1998
% growth rate
September 1997August 1998
3.71
1.30
0.51
3.42
0.25
1.01
1.58
0.43
0.68
0.14
0.19
4.74
1.71
0.34
0.42
0.09
2.88
0.03
0.95
2.77
1.47
0.07
0.32
0.67
2.08
2.42
0.02
1.41
6.13
..
2.04
0.76
0.02
0.40
172
308
148
87
333
382
305
285
280
200
171
30
259
119
169
116
300
45
97
74
178
350
94
121
247
203
250
133
122
–61
128
177
148
129
Netcraft at http://www.netcraft.co.uk/.
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Figure 5.3. Secure Web servers for electronic commerce per 100 000 inhabitants, August 1998
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
d en ge
d nd ay
a rg
in m ce an taly gal lic ary ce rea and ico key
m ria rk
d
e ny
ds
es nd lia
r
x
I rtu pub ng ree Ko ol
tat ela tra nad ou alan rlan ed era Irelan inla orw ngdo Aust nma rlan erag rma Spa elgiu Fran Jap
P
Me Tu
F
N Ki
G
e the av Ge
d S Ic Aus Ca xemb Ze witze Sw D av
B
Po Re Hu
D
e
t
e EU
d
i
w S
h
u
e
n
C
N
e
c
t
L
i
U
e
N
OE
Un
Cz
Source: OECD.
Domain Names
The Domain Name System (DNS) maps Internet addresses. To function as part of the Internet, a host needs
a domain name that has an associated Internet Protocol (IP) address record. This includes any computer system
connected to the Internet via full- or part-time, direct or dial-up connections. DNS servers perform the necessary function of translating back and forth between names and numbers. These servers contain databases of IP
addresses and corresponding domain names and they are interrogated each time a user wants to send an
e-mail or request data over the World Wide Web.
The Internet hosts surveys undertaken by Network Wizards and RIPE also provide, as a by-product, an
indicator of the number of registrations under each domain (Table 5.4). A top-level domain name can either be
an ISO country code (ccTLD, such as .be for Belgium) or one of the generic top-level domains (a so-called gTLD,
such as .com, .org, .net). To register a second-level domain name (e.g. oecd.org) or a third-level domain name
(e.g. mpt.go.jp), a user needs to apply to the domain name registry with the delegated authority for the ccTLD
or gTLD. Registration and management of all gTLDs is currently controlled in the United States, although the
registrants are spread throughout the world (however, registration and management functions will be open to
other corporations in the near future). Some of these registries publish data on the number of registrations on
a monthly basis while others only publish intermittently.
Apart from weighting host surveys, the main importance of DNS data are that they can be used to inform
discussions over the different policies and prices of ccTLD and gTLD registries. Whether the registration process under a certain domain name is subject to industry self-regulation or government oversight, the availability of DNS data is important to ensure transparency in registration management for service providers, business
users and consumers. This is particularly important in cases where a monopoly or monopoly power exists in the
registration of second- and third-level domain names.
OECD 1999
91
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 5.4.
Second, third domain registered domain names in OECD area (July 1998)
RIPE
(European Survey)
Network Wizards
2nd level domain
Australia (.au)
Austria (.at)
Belgium (.be)
Canada (.ca)
Czech Republic (.cz)
Denmark (.dk)
Finland (.fi)
France (.fr)
Germany (.de)
Greece (.gr)
Hungary (.hu)
Iceland (.is)
Ireland (.ie)
Italy (.it)
Japan (.jp)
Korea (.kr)
Luxembourg (.lu)
Mexico (.mx)
Netherlands (.nl)
New Zealand (.nz)
Norway (.no)
Poland (.pl)
Portugal (.pt)
Spain (.es)
Sweden (.se)
Switzerland (.ch)
Turkey (.tr)
United Kingdom (.uk)
United States (.us)
United States (.com)
United States (.net)
United States (.org)
United States (.gov)
United States (.mil)
United States (.edu)
United States (.int)
3
3
4
4
8
5
7
61
1
1
1
13
15
5
3
8
12
742
48
64
3
40
084
160
562
960
516
624
816
105
693
416
989
494
948
97
32
345
125
566
15
534
777
922
514
058
715
10
39
76
472
584
276
419
72
489
25
3rd level domain
20
28
28
230
39
117
330
238
344
16
31
17
26
171
30
3
5
8
276
4
188
11
24
127
150
183
1
33
3
5 266
2 448
535
249
121
1 504
843
113
574
257
993
594
742
518
826
660
272
501
789
213
316
362
667
525
608
143
976
486
385
151
315
067
812
215
001
752
432
298
717
216
988
100
SOA1
22 400
9 964
14
52
7
24
140
5
5
1
5
38
585
219
228
879
173
004
682
281
729
097
1 360
39 194
19
15
6
10
28
37
6
112
624
348
368
877
389
019
466
961
1.
SOA (Start of Authority) is the number of delegated domains (zones) found below this Top Level Domain that run a separate nameserver.
Source: Network Wizards, RIPE.
A comparison of the pricing of ccTLD and gTLD registries is shown in Table 5.5. In May 1998 there were
three pricing structures for registering second- and third-level domains in OECD countries. The first covers a
small group of countries where a charge has not been introduced by the registry. These registries include
Canada (.ca), Greece (.gr), Korea (.kr) and the United States (.us). Some entities reselling this service, such as
ISPs, do charge for registering a name under these domains but an end-user can go directly to the registry.
A second group of registries have a relatively simple pricing structure for users wanting to make a direct
registration. For this group, shown in the “Direct” bracket in Figure 5.4, it is relatively simple to compare prices.
This group of registries, which is the largest, includes Network Solutions InterNIC which charges US$35 to register a second-level domain under .com, .org and .net.
92
However, a third group of registries either do not permit end-users to register directly, or price direct registration at a very expensive rate to deter direct registration. In these countries, the registry has a lower price
range for members who then resell services to the public. In France, the Netherlands and Sweden the first part
of the bar in Figure 5.4 shows the price a reseller would pay to the registry per domain (i.e. excluding their membership fee). The second part of the bar represents an average price to end-users from a selection of resellers.
End-users cannot go directly to these registries unless they pay to become a member. In the case of Germany
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Table 5.5.
Domain name pricing, May 1998
Fee per year based on three years,
US$ PPP1
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary2
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States3
.com
OECD average
Melbourne IT
Unvie/ACOnet
DNS-BE Registration Office
CA Domain Committee
CZ-NIC
Danish Network Information Center
TAC
Average of a sample of ISPs
DE-NIC
GR Hostmaster
NIC HU
INTIS/ISnet
IE Internet Domain Registry
RA Italiana
JPNIC
KRNIC
RESTENA
NIC-Mexico
Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland
Domainz
NORID
NASK
Fundação para a Computação Cientı́fica Nacional
ES-NIC
SUNET
Switch
METU
Nominet
USC-ISI
InterNIC
48.1
61.7
77.4
0.0
49.2
39.9
28.5
170.9
45.0 – 178
0.0
106.7
214.3
149.3
31.4 – 440
40.9
0.0
92.6
46.7
138.2
55.6
27.1
87.6
61.0
96.8
97.7
37.1
46.7
61.7
0.0
35.0
64.9
1.
Annual fee calculated as initial fee plus 3 years annual fee, divided by three.
2.
Data for Hungary from Netnames.
3.
.us is free or minimal charge applies in some areas.
Source: OECD.
and Italy, a member would pay, respectively, US$51.90 and US$29.40 per registration, and is then free to resell
the service to end-users. An end-user in either country wishing to register a name directly would be charged
US$178 in Germany and US$440 in Italy. Accordingly, the reseller’s price in these countries would lie somewhere between the registry’s base price and the direct price.
For the privilege of reselling registration services, resellers pay a membership fee to the registry. In France,
resellers have two options. The first is to pay an annual membership of US$5 140, a further US$65 per domain
name registered and an annual fee of US$17 for maintenance. The second option is to pay an annual membership fee of US$343, a fee of US$206 per new registration and the same annual maintenance fee. In Germany,
membership costs US$1 515, in Italy US$1 720 (including 30 registrations), and in Sweden US$510. In general,
the price of direct registration is far less expensive than that of indirect registration.
IP Addresses
Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are the numbers used to identify computers, or other devices, on a TCP/IP
network. Networks using the TCP/IP protocol route messages based on the IP address of the destination. The format of an IP address is a 32-bit numeric address written as four numbers separated by periods. Each number is
between zero and 255. For example, 193.51.65.17 is one IP address used by the OECD.
OECD 1999
93
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 5.4. Domain name registration costs
Annual fee based on 3 years, in US$ PPP
Indirect
Italy (direct $440)
Germany (direct $178)
Sweden
Hungary
Netherlands
France
Norway
Finland
.com, .org, .net
Switzerland
Denmark
Japan
Mexico
Turkey
Australia
Direct
Czech Republic
New Zealand
Portugal
United Kingdom
Austria
OECD average
Belgium
Poland
Luxembourg
Spain
Ireland
Iceland
0
50
100
150
200
250
Note: .ca, .gr, .kr have yet to introduce charges. .us is free or minimal charge applies in some areas.
On a stand-alone private TCP/IP network, IP addresses can be assigned at random as long as each one is
unique to that network. For that private network to connect to the Internet, it requires a registered IP address
to avoid duplication. The current version of IP (IP version 4 or IPv4), which was standardised in 1981, created a
pool of 4 294 967 296 IPv4 addresses. Originally, these numbers were assigned under three classes, Class A,
Class B and Class C. However, as the Internet expanded, concern arose that the existing numbers would be
exhausted and that the size of the global routing tables was in danger of growing faster than the capabilities of
the underlying equipment. Given the huge volume increases in the size of the routing table, concerns were
raised that core routers would be forced to drop routes and portions of the Internet would become unreachable. A further problem was that net blocks, under Classes A, B and C, were often too large or too small for differing organisations’ needs.
94
To address these concerns, the Internet’s technical community introduced Classless Inter-Domain Routing
(CIDR), a new IP addressing scheme that replaces the older system. CIDR enables more efficient allocation of
the IPv4 address space, allowing for the continued growth of the Internet until a new numbering system (IPv6)
is deployed. It is projected that IPv6, which will create a virtually unlimited resource of IP numbers, will be
increasingly used from the year 2000, and play a significant role by around 2003 to 2005. Before that time, it is
envisaged that IPv4 allocations and assignments will be made with an eye to the finite nature of the existing
resource and the need to minimise growth in the size of the routing table.
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Originally, blocks of IP addresses were directly allocated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA). While, in some cases, the IANA still makes direct assignments to organisations, most allocations are now
made to three regional bodies – APNIC (Asia-Pacific Network Information Center), ARIN (American Registry for
Internet Numbers) and RIPE NCC (Reseaux IP Européens Network Co-ordination Centre). These organisations
subsequently re-allocate or assign IP addresses to individual organisations, such as ISPs or national bodies
co-ordinating IP address space for a certain country (e.g. KR-NIC in Korea and JP-NIC in Japan). As a general rule,
end-users receive IP assignments from their ISP. Notwithstanding, some ISPs receive addresses from upstream
or backbone ISPs and some end-users receive allocations directly from a registry or directly from the IANA.
The best sources of data on IP addresses are the three regional IP address registries. However, the policies
and practices of each organisation mean that the dissemination of IP allocation and assignment is carried out
in different forms. APNIC publishes time-series data for assignments in its annual report, together with a very
useful analytical discussion of significant trends. RIPE maintains a database of allocated address space which
indicates the date of allocation, the size of allocation and the type of allocation. These data are grouped by
RIPE under country ccTLDs (and “EU”, representing the European region) and listed by the recipient organisation. By clicking on the IP number assigned to a certain entity, RIPE’s database displays contact names and
other information. ARIN maintains a “Whois?” which enables users to query their database for their assignments and those of the IANA. While the ARIN “Whois?” enables a user to look up a particular assignment via an
IP address, or all assignments by company name, it is less easy to get an overview of total assignments and
trends than at RIPE or APNIC.
To see individual IP number assignments, it is necessary to look at the available information from the
regional databases of the three regional registries. The best starting point is ARIN’s “Whois?” database which
can be used to generate the first level of allocations and reservations made by the IANA (Table 5.6). The largest
individual blocks of IP addresses, formerly called Class A, are between numbers 1 and 127. Given the origins
of the Internet, many of these blocks were historically allocated to United States military, military contractors
and academic institutions. It is possible to generate the individual records of each of these net blocks by placing X.0.0.0 (where X equals the first network number). For example, placing 4.0.0.0 in the ARIN “Whois?” will
produce the record for BBN’s allocation. Similarly, typing 63.0.0.0 in the search field will reveal that this block
of IP addresses is allocated to ARIN who then reassigns smaller amounts of address space to applicants. Most
of the “Class A” blocks received directly by individual organisations were assigned by the IANA prior to the creation of ARIN.
The data in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show the largest assignments by RIPE and APNIC, respectively. Many of the
organisations with the largest allocations from RIPE and APNIC can, and do, apply for additional allocations
from ARIN. The data shown are simply reassignments made by RIPE and APNIC from their allocations from the
IANA. Notwithstanding this limitation, the data reveal a trend towards traditional telecommunication carriers
gaining the largest allocations of IP addresses. In Europe, telecommunication carriers, or group alliances
between carriers, hold the majority of IP addresses. This is due to telecommunication carriers emerging as
some of the largest ISPs, in their own right, and by taking over the largest independent ISPs. Several university
networks retain large IP address blocks and some government agencies have large allocations, such as the
National Health Service in the United Kingdom.
In the Asia/Pacific region, data on individual allocations are not always available at the national registry
level because of the past or present role of national Network Information Centres (NICs). For example, KR-NIC
publishes a current total of all IP address space allocated to it for Korea. In the APNIC database the largest individual allocation is to Telstra (203/10), which was originally allocated to the Australian Academic Research
Network acting as AU-NIC. Telstra inherited this allocation when it purchased AARNet/AUNIC. As such, significant parts of the 203/10 space have been allocated to ISPs in Australia, although Telstra still announces this
group of IP addresses to the rest of the Internet. At the same time, individual ISPs from Australia have gone
directly to APNIC for address blocks. To show overall allocations by country, the data in Table 5.9 present the
APNIC and RIPE assignments by country rather than by entity. However, it needs to be borne in mind that these
are just APNIC and RIPE reassignments and that significant IP resources have also been assigned by ARIN and
the IANA to entities in these countries. For example, the Department of Social Security in the United Kingdom’s
historic “Class A” allocation (51/8) is nearly twice the size of all allocations made to ISPs and other UK users in
the United Kingdom via RIPE.
OECD 1999
95
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 5.6.
Leading IP allocations and reservations by IANA, May 1998
Coordinator
Coordinator
Coordinator
1 IANA
23 IANA
45 Interop Show Network
2 IANA
24 Multiple Cable Companies
46 n.a.
3 General Electric Company
25 Royal Signals and Radar
Establishment
47 Bell-Northern Research
4 BBN Planet
26 Defense Information Systems Agency
48 Prudential Securities Inc.
5 IANA
27 IANA
49 n.a.
6 Army Information Systems Center
28 ARPA DSI JPO
50 Various
7 Defense Information Systems Agency
29 Defense Information Systems Agency
51 Department of Social Security
of United Kingdom
8 IANA
30 Defense Information Systems Agency
52 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co.,
Inc.
9 IBM Corporation
31 IANA
53 Cap Debis ccs
10 IANA
32 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi
54 Merck and Co., Inc.
11 DoD Intel Information Systems
33 DLA Systems Automation Center
55 Army National Guard Bureau
12 Various
34 Halliburton Company
56 US Postal Service
13 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
35 Merit Network Inc.
57 Société Internationale
de Télécommunications
Aeronautiques (SITA)
14 Public Data Network
36 Stanford University
58 IANA
15 Hewlett-Packard Company
37 IANA
59 IANA
16 Digital Equipment Corporation
38 Performance Systems International
60 IANA
17 Apple Computer, Inc.
39 IANA
61 Asia Pacific Network Information
Center (APNIC)
18 Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
40 Eli Lilly and Company
62 European Regional Internet Registry
(RIPE NCC)
19 Ford Motor Company
41 IANA
63 American Registry for Internet
Numbers (ARIN)
20 Computer Sciences Corporation
42 IANA
64 IANA/ARIN
21 DDN-RVN
43 Japan Inet
22 Defense Information Systems Agency
44 Amateur Radio Digital
Communications
65-127 IANA
128-212 Various/IANA
Note: A maximum of 126 (2 7 -2) /8 networks can be defined. The calculation requires that the 2 is subtracted because the /8 network 0.0.0.0 is reserved for use
as the default route and the /8 network 127.0.0.0 (also written 127/8; or 127.0.0.0/8) has been reserved for the ‘‘loopback’’ function. Each /8 supports
a maximum of 16,777,214 (2 24 -2) hosts per network. The host calculation requires that 2 is subtracted because the all-0s (‘‘this network’’) and all-1s
(‘‘broadcast’’) host-numbers may not be assigned to individual hosts.
Source: OECD.
The Internet and Convergence
96
One indicator of the take up of different audio, video and other software tools on the World Wide Web is
to use a search engine to count the number of applications. As Internet searches can be conducted under a
particular top-level domain name by using “HotBot”, it is possible to get an indication of the use of these technologies (Table 5.10). By including objects found under gTLDs and the ccTLDs associated with OECD Member
countries, there appeared to be around 600 000 audio and more than 200 000 video applications in July 1998.
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Table 5.7.
Leading IP allocations from RIPE, April 1998
Assignment
(host equivalent)
Recipient Organisation
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Last Resort registries and RIPE Archive
EUnet (Qwest)
UUnet (Worldcom)
France Telecom
Telianet (Telia AB)
PSInet (PSINet UK Ltd)
Renater (Renater) GIP Renater
Unisource (Unisource Business Networks) (Telia, KPN,
Swisscom)
Datanet (DATANET) Telecom Finland
Sunet (SUNET/NORDUnet) University/Research
IBM (IBM Global Network Europe)
HTC (The Helsinki Telephone Ltd.)
Demon Internet (Scottish Telecom)
Janet (JANET NOSC) Research
TTD (Telefonica Transmision de Datos)
NHS (United Kingdom National Health Service)
Telenor(Telenor Nextel AS) (Telenor CR)
Interbusiness (InterBusiness) Telecom Italia
Global One (France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, Sprint)
BT (BT Public Internet Service)
MAZ (MAZ Internet Services)
DFN (DFN) University/Research
Telekom (Deutsche Telekom AG)
Nacamar (Nacamar Data Communications)
NASK (Research and Academic Networks in Poland)
TPSA (Polish Telecom)
Source:
716
317
194
261
073
040
991
925
864
760
880
568
152
384
232
696
16.4
7.1
6.8
2.7
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
917
917
880
737
720
720
630
589
540
524
466
458
401
393
393
331
327
278
504
504
640
280
896
896
784
824
672
288
944
752
408
216
216
776
680
528
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
Countries/Region
for which assignments were made.
at, ch, cz, de, dk, eu, fi, no, tr, uk.
at, be, cz, de, eu, fr, fi, is, ie, lu, no.
de, eu, fr, it, nl, se, uk.
fr, se.
dk,se,no, uk.
be,ch,de,es,fr,it,nl, uk.
fr
at, be,ch, de,it,nl.
fi
se
eu
fi
uk
uk
es
uk
cz, no, se.
it
eu, uk.
uk
de
de
de
de
pl
pl
OECD.
Table 5.8.
Recipient organisation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
7
3
3
1
1
1
Percentage
of total
RIPE
assignment
JPNIC
Telstra
KRNIC
CERNET
TW-NIC
Netway (Telecom New Zealand)
Jaring
Chinanet
Inet
Access One/Ozemail
NZ-NIC
PIPL
AUnet
IBM
Linkage
Twix
CN-NIC
Stari
Connect
Cyberway
Evoserve
Singnet
ERNET
Hong Kong Telecom
SIC
Country level IP data
JPNIC
KRNIC
Leading IP allocations from APNIC, January 1998
Assignment
(host equivalent)1
7
4
3
2
1
668
194
932
785
638
356
327
262
197
196
159
156
131
98
98
81
73
66
65
65
65
65
53
49
49
480
304
160
280
400
352
680
144
376
608
744
928
072
304
304
920
728
560
536
536
536
536
248
152
152
Percentage
of total
APNIC allocation
32
17.5
16.4
11.6
6.8
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Countries/regions
for which assignments were made.
Japan
Australia
Korea
China
Chinese Taipei
New Zealand
Malaysia
China
Thailand
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore
Asia Pacific
Asia Pacific
Hong Kong
Chinese Taipei
China
Hong Kong (China)
Australia
Singapore
Philippines
Singapore
India
Hong Kong (China)
China
http://www.nic.ad.jp/jpnic/ipaddress/ip-list-e.txt
http://www.krnic.net/net/c–class–98.html
1.
While included here, in practice each allocation block requires that 2 is subtracted because the all-0s (‘‘this network’’) and all-1s (‘‘broadcast’’) host
numbers may not be assigned to individual hosts.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
97
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 5.9.
APNIC assignment
by country
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Japan
Australia
Korea
China
Chinese Taipei
New Zealand
Hong Kong (China)
Malaysia
Singapore
Asia Pacific
Thailand
Indonesia
Philippines
India
Pakistan
Mongolia
Sri Lanka
Macao
Fiji
Venuatu
Maldives
Papua New Guinea
Bangladesh
.ap area
Total
Asia Pacific OECD2
Leading IP assignments from APNIC and RIPE, by country
Assignment
% of total
RIPE assignment
(host equivalent)1 APNIC assignment by country
7
4
3
3
1
726
637
932
252
785
533
416
379
314
286
282
166
119
94
10
9
7
4
2
2
1
1
848
952
160
224
856
504
000
904
112
976
368
400
296
208
240
216
168
096
048
048
024
024
512
286 976
23 965 184
17 117 440
32.24
19.35
16.41
13.57
7.45
2.23
1.74
1.59
1.31
1.2
1.18
0.69
0.5
0.39
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.004
0.002
1.2
100
71.42
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Sweden
Finland
Italy
Switzerland
Austria
Netherlands
Norway
Denmark
Spain
Czech Rep.
Belgium
Poland
Turkey
Hungary
Portugal
Greece
Ireland
Iceland
Luxembourg
.eu area
Europe (OECD)
% of total
Assignment
OECD European
(host equivalent)1
assignment
8
8
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
552
429
170
752
648
375
859
605
556
294
165
155
876
811
802
729
557
471
360
180
139
122
5 353
704
568
304
512
064
680
584
632
480
336
312
072
544
008
816
088
056
552
448
224
264
880
472
18.2
17.9
6.7
5.9
5.6
5.1
4
3.4
3.3
2.8
2.5
2.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.2
1
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.3
11.4
46 969 600
100
1.
While included here, in practice each allocation block requires that 2 is subtracted because the all-0s (‘‘this network’’) and all-1s (‘‘broadcast’’) host
numbers may not be assigned to individual hosts.
2.
Including Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Asia Pacific (.ap) assignments.
Source: OECD.
While the usual caveat applies that the allocations under gTLDs are not country specific, the data shown
under ccTLDs might be taken to represent a very large sample for any given country. Accordingly, by using
search engines, analysts have one indication of the number of webcasting sites under a domain associated with
a certain country. In the future this may be an important source of information to assist policy makers dealing
with convergence issues.
The World Wide Web
Charts of the growth of the Internet show a sharp rise in popularity after the development of the World
Wide Web. In particular, there was a sharp increase after the introduction of “browsers”, the initial tools that
made it easy to navigate by “pointing and clicking”. This innovation created new pathways for electronic commerce and, by doing so, raises the question of whether indicators of the topography of linkages between
domains could be useful for policy makers. While the nature of the Internet’s DNS makes it easier to apply some
analytical tools to individual domains (i.e. yahoo.com) than to geographical areas (e.g. .nl for the Netherlands),
it is possible to construct a matrix of the linkages between all the ccTLDs associated with OECD countries and
gTLDs (Table 5.11). These data show the number of hypertext links embedded in Web sites between all ccTLDs
and gTLDs. For example, in July 1998 there were 3 281 links from .au (Australia) to .at (Austria) and 2 855 links
from .at to .au.
98
The largest number of hypertext links between top-level domains are intra-domain links. For example,
some 71.6 per cent of all hypertext links under .au are to other Web sites under .au (Table 5.12). Table 5.13
shows the same data but with these intra-domain links excluded. Next in rank among the domains to which
there are the most hypertext links are the gTLDs such as .com. One reason for this is that these domains can,
OECD 1999
Internet Infrastructure
Table 5.10. Comparative World Wide Web development (June 1998)
Domain Top Level Domain
.com
.edu
.org
.net
.de
.ca
.uk
.jp
.au
.us
.se
.it
.fr
.nl
.ch
.fi
.at
.no
.es
.kr
.cz
.dk
.pl
.be
.mil
.mx
.hu
.nz
.gr
.pt
.ie
.tr
.int
.is
.lu
COM
EDU
ORG
NET
Germany
Canada
United Kingdom
Japan
Australia
United States
Sweden
Italy
France
Netherlands
Switzerland
Finland
Austria
Norway
Spain
Korea
Czech Republic
Denmark
Poland
Belgium
MIL
Mexico
Hungary
New Zealand
Greece
Portugal
Ireland
Turkey
INT
Iceland
Luxembourg
OECD 1
Under
origin domain
suffix
34
13
5
5
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
382
815
099
056
098
832
789
247
657
341
147
142
012
913
820
735
645
582
569
436
427
391
349
295
293
280
236
201
159
135
130
113
97
52
31
84 525
090
908
979
226
814
673
408
215
438
568
532
622
372
586
348
468
005
982
020
619
569
685
900
036
634
834
429
499
591
924
975
766
464
311
886
376
Share of total
OECD
40.7
16.3
6.0
6.0
4.8
3.4
3.3
2.7
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
100.0
Audio
269
66
37
44
15
12
53
22
13
5
7
5
6
5
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
809
757
147
693
393
215
129
341
301
983
806
415
738
378
838
137
383
690
343
886
067
929
540
463
455
846
640
1 065
600
573
727
266
14
327
135
596 029
Video
70
72
7
6
8
3
4
7
2
1
4
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
214
265
634
140
830
228
245
706
705
733
808
373
602
610
042
113
923
872
304
928
591
468
598
404
485
557
169
294
290
253
144
161
126
12
100
28
741
1.
OECD represents approximately 96 per cent of the world total. However, this includes domains found under non-OECD country gTLDs.
Source: OECD.
at one level, be seen as an extension of intra-domain links because a significant proportion of gTLD registrations are from outside the United States. In other words, a large number of .au to .com hypertext links would
be within Australia. The second, and more important, reason for the preponderance of links is that much of the
most popular content is under .com. Accordingly, the .com share of inter-domain links is by far the largest. For
example, 38 per cent of all the inter-domain links from the .au domains are to the .com domains, followed by
.net and .edu.
It is also possible to look at the bilateral relationships between domains. In Table 5.14 the data show the
percentage of total hypertext links between two domains. For example, there were 11 423 hypertext links from
.ca to .fr and 10 994 links from .fr to .ca. Accordingly, Table 5.14 shows that 51 per cent of the bilateral links were
from .ca to .fr and 49 per cent from .fr to .ca. Overall, there were 3 254 329 hypertext links from .ca to other
domains and 3 072 287 hypertext links from all other domains to .ca. The balance, including intra-domain links
under .ca, was 48.7 per cent incoming links and 51.3 per cent outgoing links. By excluding intra-domain links,
the balance for .ca inter-domain links was 44.2 per cent incoming links and 55.8 per cent outgoing links. One
reason for this balance is that, outside users in the United States, the Canadians are the greatest users of .com.
To make allowance for this it is possible to exclude .com, .net and .org, which shifts the balance in the opposite
direction. Under this equation some 67.7 per cent of links are incoming for .ca and 33.3 per cent of links are
outgoing from .ca.
OECD 1999
99
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
Total
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
464
703
900
752
274
428
1 011
1 630
5 027
490
103
56
168
1 376
291
226
25 327
31
1 234
40
417
729
203
1 229
1 008
552
168
2 604
104
6 109
2 033
1 102
2 022
103
187
59 101
848
226
164
1 516
198
126
248
398
1 257
75
117
27
44
727
532
263
10
240 524
431
90
181
131
105
1 890
406
223
118
996
548
17 217
2 481
3 270
6 444
384
18
282 233
.au
1 583 158
3 281
2 810
18 728
.at
2 855 547 653
1 295
2 957
.be
1 841
896 245 743
2 304
.ca
20 484
3 369
3 804 2 372 498
.cz
1 664
1 238
578
2 455
.dk
2 047
822
783
2 323
.fi
4 804
1 935
1 698
5 291
.fr
5 449
1 916
5 842
10 994
.de
17 878
28 891
6 454
18 212
.gr
826
332
368
771
.hu
2 250
674
280
1 013
.is
344
238
110
517
.ie
2 621
489
558
1 526
.it
5 732
2 562
2 261
5 748
.jp
10 949
2 530
1 907
11 551
.kr
2 944
842
803
3 382
.lu
84
122
482
208
.mx
470
145
129
905
.nl
6 904
2 776
6 059
7 195
.nz
6 587
211
237
1 624
.no
3 018
1 133
928
3 217
.pl
1 788
693
505
1 583
.pt
1 443
362
467
1 019
.es
2 901
1 246
1 560
1 560
.se
7 686
2 814
2 367
8 274
.ch
3 212
3 301
1 797
4 010
.tr
1 417
456
356
1 834
.uk
20 582
5 038
5 796
20 902
.us
4 992
647
721
9 744
.com
180 774
33 271
36 040
310 326
.org
29 594
5 921
7 035
60 979
.net
40 555
9 016
8 212
66 886
.edu
77 921
14 505
11 044
107 593
.gov
2 928
587
446
4 032
.int
56
62
233
126
2 058 758 679 974 359 708 3 072 287
778
529
232
1 303
374 124
256
538
532
2 325
94
283
48
80
659
837
296
23
56
825
56
352
484
138
390
803
481
162
1 298
122
12 407
3 013
2 700
4 430
164
43
410 861
2 393
5 793
6 155
12 931
1 234
804
566
2 587
5 625
7 100
1 090
1 007
5 757
2 770
17 077
376
543
141
563
3 706
1 629
307
743
1 087
3 557
3 486
326
225
147
584
1 555
905
229
3 059
5 355
11 423
14 061
1 069
909
632
3 491
5 557
7 094
1 139
630
1 277
1 464
4 794
212
443
109
347
1 436
977
217
349 218
10 331
1 900
3 762
231
246
353
434
1 352
922
225
2 396 603 110
2 940
24 913
454
563
538
1 054
2 818
2 295
334
2 496
2 337 965 890
10 189
589
445
187
1 032
4 478
2 847
397
13 474
10 271
18 260 3 284 644
1 743
2 046
871
3 996
14 077
9 062
1 575
269
420
917
2 083 134 105
113
57
153
670
475
171
250
697
914
2 091
141 201 874
47
173
761
462
135
383
266
168
370
45
35 45 387
93
168
155
29
344
1 698
1 712
2 216
288
71
49 113 600
1 367
1 262
53
1 785
3 011
7 419
10 684
830
911
431
1 293 1 040 151
2 917
520
2 015
18 403
9 980
10 914
587
712
315
1 182
4 625 1 915 213
1 931
3 356
997
1 689
5 537
261
303
151
617
1 287
2 613 381 919
91
95
336
699
46
14
24
60
194
46
11
132
270
367
623
30
64
20
87
312
255
44
2 230
4 356
5 274
12 299
732
746
521
1 416
5 070
7 699
593
223
374
429
986
81
60
62
309
409
541
141
4 502
2 591
2 681
5 196
343
269
505
752
1 534
1 326
271
633
968
1 279
3 803
199
319
100
321
2 357
1 138
222
325
658
949
3 567
371
115
56
222
850
518
138
1 089
1 722
3 422
5 026
536
360
185
683
2 908
1 544
377
7 338
7 726
4 601
11 585
741
622
838
1 687
29 570
3 436
708
1 142
1 741
7 944
16 752
334
472
116
689
3 531
3 310
352
316
572
922
1 616
147
184
53
288
610
759
205
5 650
7 391
11 576
31 564
1 969
1 327
914
7 020
9 788
22 691
1 646
462
1 105
1 551
2 243
236
171
125
733
1 323
1 841
226
30 041
45 191
90 025
190 754
12 002
7 637
7 350
29 689
75 127
94 609
20 036
5 920
8 261
22 046
29 944
14 497
1 530
931
3 460
10 995
13 102
2 125
7 650
13 736
19 496
36 433
2 653
1 966
1 784
6 306
16 826
18 267
6 495
10 728
20 137
30 091
76 554
4 235
5 453
1 878
11 287
21 846
45 090
38 010
740
773
1 707
3 942
142
171
64
334
1 535
1 887
289
100
75
173
218
67
26
21
44
209
70
22
463 130 788 552 1 242 027 3 843 556 181 852 231 749 65 528 196 586 1 274 627 2 174 057 462 182
Communications Outlook 1999
100
Table 5.11. World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998)
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 5.11. World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) (cont.)
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
Total
Source :
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
Netherlands New Zealand
.nl
.nz
9
3
6
12
2
2
5
6
29
1
1
5 656
422
281
3 479
318
981
640
549
3 573
130
129
65
116
1 028
3 078
589
21
61
1 302
166 723
481
271
149
498
1 185
498
264
5 319
615
39 167
3 698
6 556
10 379
379
20
258 620
030
433
274
059
368
525
153
262
203
255
252
422
1 722
9 454
7 847
2 019
271
380
802 538
838
3 622
1 612
880
3 250
8 759
4 626
1 055
17 775
2 711
123 408
20 399
34 957
45 931
2 103
224
1 175 617
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
5
1
1
5
1
16
4
3
10
203
2 021
2 364
2 511
12 546
9 141
258
595
457
424
994
2 558
4 954
114
084
286
309
714
1 628
2 067
67
096
1 696
860
2 542
8 368
9 584
221
136
541
310
466
1 508
2 064
49
812
299
259
561
5 947
1 538
46
047
476
517
1 095
8 801
3 326
117
496
638
810
2 024
4 163
9 172
108
413
2 789
2 162
5 184
16 769
32 172
602
405
148
299
194
824
612
33
613
277
114
252
731
1 378
49
410
43
38
69
468
218
11
1 565
1 301
1 584
1 242
4 907
758
14
2 870
790
774
2 553
6 030
6 152
173
3 233
1 957
644
1 630
5 293
7 666
324
1 173
398
320
521
1 718
2 216
125
54
36
80
143
143
221
3
224
71
47
795
275
328
23
3 981
1 051
831
1 895
6 882
4 964
175
353
99
73
181
632
936
12
505 274
385
296
573
7 210
2 401
91
1 221 273 198
203
366
1 638
1 712
71
494
435 118 017
577
2 356
1 577
78
1 687
468
928 500 216
2 487
3 329
132
9 912
1 043
901
1 711 1 006 346
5 889
165
1 797
439
540
1 024
2 962 727 850
95
531
266
115
214
727
1 019 43 512
7 584
1 674
1 752
4 624
12 690
17 926
460
1 091
255
162
488
2 005
2 261
72
53 072 18 213 11 039 39 236
130 564
80 451 1 582
8 600
1 815
1 960
6 073
14 579
55 985 1 194
16 362
4 363
2 111
7 452
23 205
20 204
614
20 590
4 920
3 377
9 349
34 270
43 769 2 355
735
251
178
433
1 123
8 060
110
57
17
63
87
110
1 832
2
692 770 323 116 154 461 597 989 1 332 463 1 073 732 53 057
United Kingdom United States
.uk
37
7
5
60
5
6
11
13
57
3
2
2
9
17
28
6
367
037
009
197
199
190
858
169
031
250
662
579
652
216
221
095
484
947
19 828
4 047
12 535
3 802
6 719
8 370
20 465
9 483
2 674
2 399 150
9 010
419 724
53 139
70 410
170 081
33 015
263
3 516 878
.us
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
Total
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
total
8 044
238 734
50 599
90 690
64 636
15 307
379 2 210 831
620
50 818
24 546
11 550
16 687
7 527
1 048
724 878
478
33 062
7 713
7 880
9 118
1 933
895
343 722
9 380
351 879
105 811
90 402
105 867
28 271
1 102 3 254 329
626
38 685
9 906
7 233
12 502
2 609
270
478 227
543
77 915
21 613
8 497
8 528
2 385
587
530 985
1 273
52 976
15 123
14 512
21 594
14 772 18 780
832 000
1 113
90 126
33 362
18 038
24 174
7 740
834 1 233 426
3 864
315 941
119 105
94 495
108 479
28 593
2 805 4 273 243
253
25 190
5 246
2 617
4 357
1 105
1 555
189 862
255
20 495
4 260
3 409
6 890
1 306
95
256 432
138
4 527
1 557
1 217
1 501
337
60
62 099
216
31 921
4 367
4 703
12 635
708
164
205 721
1 655
122 857
22 778
25 851
22 266
8 559
1 339 1 341 362
2 175
163 406
34 974
32 681
68 726
52 377
259 2 408 965
957
44 985
9 361
14 798
11 923
3 549
88
508 321
33
3 413
504
433
420
138
508
34 777
183
10 344
2 344
2 631
3 569
712
25
267 423
1 563
99 347
27 284
32 321
23 914
6 242
1 122 1 101 600
438
28 412
5 451
5 980
4 371
1 060
45
232 111
766
47 173
11 973
10 155
13 224
3 241
354
648 970
430
33 840
6 450
8 380
7 343
1 866
145
359 800
267
18 267
3 967
3 034
4 604
880
185
173 992
917
45 862
13 105
16 847
15 262
3 709
1 037
646 732
1 941
124 698
29 451
35 683
32 152
7 586
1 279 1 381 376
698
77 663
18 843
12 974
17 859
4 849
1 274
933 433
547
12 394
5 245
3 759
6 879
1 486
74
90 944
5 057
381 320
75 512
74 247
89 601
55 009
3 157 3 311 609
1 134 816
125 880
60 718
38 256
62 596
38 335
138 1 506 303
204 608 28 131 921 1 235 643 2 498 323
860 632
331 087 14 790 35 392 065
46 658
730 815 4 084 047
173 701
215 323
94 265
4 179 5 740 297
49 692
1 377 625
242 527 4 128 522
259 464
57 868
1 011 6 566 296
97 530
1 052 173
454 143
270 774 9 162 329
223 030
2 750 9 162 329
9 497
55 536
25 926
10 161
63 582 1 245 236
272 1 476 825
15
944
955
281
215
272 84 521
91 628
1 587 246 34 021 144 6 774 409 7 755 035 11 343 222 2 253 949 147 126
OECD.
Internet Infrastructure
101
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
71.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
2.8
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
1.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
75.6
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
71.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.7
72.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.4
2.0
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
78.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
65.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.9
72.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
78.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
2.4
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.7
3.0
0.8
76.9
1.1
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.5
1.1
2.0
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.8
1.1
2.1
0.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
70.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
78.7
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
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
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
55.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
77.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.4
2.1
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
79.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
75.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
72.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
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
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
89.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Communications Outlook 1999
102
Table 5.12. Percentage of all World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998)
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 5.12. Percentage of all World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) (cont.)
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
0.4
0.5
1.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.1
72.9
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
71.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
3.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
77.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
75.9
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
67.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
77.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
2.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.3
1.1
0.5
1.4
0.4
72.9
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
78.0
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
2.0
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
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
47.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0
4.2
4.7
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.4
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.1
3.9
1.3
1.5
1.0
2.9
72.4
0.6
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.4
2.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.2
75.3
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.0
10.8
7.0
9.6
10.8
8.1
14.7
6.4
7.3
7.4
13.3
8.0
7.3
15.5
9.2
6.8
8.8
9.8
3.9
9.0
12.2
7.3
9.4
10.5
7.1
9.0
8.3
13.6
11.5
8.4
79.5
12.7
21.0
8.7
3.8
1.0
2.3
3.4
2.2
3.3
2.1
4.1
1.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
1.7
2.5
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.4
0.9
2.5
2.3
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
5.8
2.3
4.0
3.5
71.1
3.7
3.8
1.8
1.0
4.1
1.6
2.3
2.8
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.5
2.2
1.4
1.3
2.0
2.3
1.9
1.4
2.9
1.2
1.0
2.9
2.6
1.6
2.3
1.7
2.6
2.6
1.4
4.1
2.2
2.5
7.1
3.0
62.9
2.2
0.7
0.3
2.9
2.3
2.7
3.3
2.6
1.6
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.4
6.1
1.7
2.9
2.3
1.2
1.3
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.4
2.3
1.9
7.6
2.7
4.2
2.4
3.8
4.0
75.7
4.3
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
2.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.6
1.7
2.5
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.8
84.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
92.2
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Internet Infrastructure
103
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
0.5
0.4
0.7
3.0
1.7
2.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.9
3.2
1.1
0.6
1.2
5.7
1.0
1.6
3.6
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.3
2.1
9.6
3.6
1.6
4.6
2.1
10.9
3.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
2.1
1.6
0.6
1.4
0.7
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.6
1.9
2.3
1.6
1.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
4.1
2.1
2.8
1.9
2.2
2.3
0.9
1.7
2.3
10.1
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.0
2.0
1.6
3.0
2.3
1.3
2.5
1.8
1.7
2.7
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
2.9
0.6
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.7
2.2
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
5.1
0.5
2.0
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
3.3
2.4
1.3
2.3
4.1
1.8
1.4
1.9
3.1
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.7
2.2
3.4
2.4
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.1
2.2
2.0
3.9
2.3
2.6
4.3
3.7
2.7
3.7
1.7
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.5
2.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
2.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.3
3.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.4
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.0
3.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.2
2.1
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
1.1
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.9
2.5
2.0
1.3
3.6
1.4
1.8
0.7
1.9
1.5
1.7
2.3
1.2
3.9
1.9
1.3
0.4
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.7
2.4
3.7
3.8
2.2
2.4
3.5
2.2
4.4
7.4
2.3
4.1
1.5
3.6
4.4
6.4
3.4
3.1
8.1
3.4
3.5
0.6
2.6
1.8
1.5
2.6
1.7
3.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
2.1
1.2
1.7
0.6
1.1
2.7
1.5
2.0
7.9
1.7
1.3
1.1
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.9
2.1
0.5
0.9
2.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.6
1.6
2.5
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.7
1.5
0.8
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
Communications Outlook 1999
104
Table 5.13. Percentage of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDS (excluding intra-domains) (July 1998)
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 5.13. Percentage of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDS (excluding intra-domains) (July 1998) (cont.)
To
From
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
2.3
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
1.4
1.9
6.4
1.4
2.3
1.4
2.3
2.3
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.5
1.9
3.1
1.6
1.6
2.9
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
.se
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.1
9.2
1.8
1.3
1.1
0.7
1.1
2.5
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.7
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.4
1.5
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
2.0
1.4
1.7
0.9
1.4
3.3
3.8
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.3
2.8
5.3
2.0
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.0
2.3
1.0
5.0
1.9
4.2
1.7
1.5
2.8
2.1
1.1
2.0
0.8
1.5
3.4
3.3
1.1
2.5
1.3
0.8
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.3
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.8
2.3
1.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
6.0
4.0
5.1
6.8
5.0
3.4
5.2
4.9
5.8
5.8
4.9
15.4
10.5
5.7
5.7
4.8
5.1
3.5
6.6
6.2
8.7
4.4
12.0
5.7
5.5
4.6
5.6
1.3
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.3
1.2
0.6
38.0
28.7
33.7
39.9
37.2
42.9
23.1
33.7
32.0
45.2
37.6
27.1
34.7
40.8
33.1
35.6
36.1
38.5
33.2
43.5
32.8
39.1
32.6
31.3
33.3
37.8
26.1
41.8
33.9
8.1
13.9
7.9
12.0
9.5
11.9
6.6
12.5
12.0
9.4
7.8
9.3
4.7
7.6
7.1
7.4
5.3
8.7
9.1
8.3
8.3
7.4
7.1
8.9
7.9
9.2
11.1
8.3
16.3
17.0
14.4
6.5
8.0
10.3
6.9
4.7
6.3
6.7
9.6
4.7
6.2
7.3
5.1
8.6
6.6
11.7
4.6
9.8
10.8
9.1
7.1
9.7
5.4
11.5
9.5
6.3
7.9
8.1
10.3
34.4
10.5
10.3
9.4
9.3
12.0
12.0
4.7
9.4
9.0
11.0
7.8
12.6
9.0
13.7
7.4
13.9
9.4
4.4
13.3
8.0
6.7
9.2
8.5
8.2
10.4
8.6
8.7
14.5
9.8
16.9
11.9
13.0
10.6
2.4
4.2
2.0
3.2
2.5
1.3
6.5
2.9
2.9
2.0
2.4
2.0
0.8
2.8
10.6
2.8
1.5
2.6
2.1
1.6
2.3
2.2
1.6
2.5
2.0
2.4
3.1
6.0
10.3
4.6
5.7
2.4
7.6
0.1
0.6
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.3
8.2
0.3
0.3
2.8
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
5.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.5
1.9
1.6
2.2
0.3
2.3
2.2
1.9
0.7
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.9
3.2
1.4
0.9
1.2
2.6
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
0.5
1.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.5
1.5
2.1
2.0
0.6
1.1
3.4
0.8
1.5
3.5
25.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.4
5.8
3.2
2.9
5.8
14.3
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.0
3.3
4.1
0.2
44.1
56.5
35.9
24.0
13.3
9.9
15.5
11.2
13.4
9.2
4.4
4.0
27.5
3.0
3.8
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Internet Infrastructure
105
To
From
Australia
.au
Austria
.at
Belgium
.be
Canada
.ca
Czech Republic
.cz
Denmark
.dk
Finland
.fi
France
.fr
Germany
.de
Greece
.gr
Hungary
.hu
Iceland
.is
Ireland
.ie
Italy
.it
Japan
.jp
Korea
.kr
Luxembourg
.lu
Mexico
.mx
Netherlands
.nl
New Zealand
.nz
Norway
.no
Poland
.pl
Portugal
.pt
Spain
.es
Sweden
.se
Switzerland
.ch
Turkey
.tr
United Kingdom
.uk
United States
.us
COM
.com
ORG
.org
NET
.net
EDU
.edu
GOV
.gov
INT
.int
Total
total
Inter-domain
(ie. excluding
intra-domain)
Inter-domain TLD
(excluding intra and .com.,
.net,. org.)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
.au
.at
.be
.ca
.cz
.dk
.fi
.fr
.de
.gr
.hu
.is
.ie
.it
.jp
.kr
.lu
.mx
100.0
46.5
39.6
52.2
68.1
46.1
45.3
47.0
58.0
40.1
73.7
37.8
50.3
50.5
60.7
73.0
15.3
35.7
43.3
53.8
36.7
46.9
37.9
53.6
38.0
26.0
84.6
35.5
38.3
43.1
36.9
30.9
54.7
16.1
12.9
48.2
53.5
100.0
40.9
53.3
70.1
44.9
25.2
40.9
62.9
46.9
55.4
62.8
46.5
40.9
60.8
73.3
14.8
39.1
44.7
33.3
41.5
60.3
46.1
55.6
52.4
40.0
80.0
41.7
51.1
39.6
19.4
43.8
46.5
7.2
5.6
48.4
60.4
59.1
100.0
62.3
71.4
51.3
61.0
62.2
64.9
53.0
55.4
42.8
48.9
59.3
67.8
77.8
34.9
44.0
49.1
45.8
46.1
63.8
60.2
68.6
59.2
46.5
84.2
53.6
60.1
52.2
47.7
51.0
54.8
18.7
20.7
51.1
47.8
46.7
37.7
100.0
65.3
43.2
49.7
49.0
56.4
41.9
52.7
45.0
30.4
50.8
62.0
74.8
21.7
37.4
37.4
31.8
38.7
48.3
54.2
38.0
49.7
29.5
89.2
25.8
51.0
46.9
36.6
42.5
50.4
12.5
10.3
48.6
31.9
29.9
28.6
34.7
100.0
28.9
29.6
26.7
32.7
30.7
39.0
30.6
18.7
31.5
46.1
57.7
7.7
22.0
25.8
15.0
23.7
47.2
30.8
45.6
34.7
18.9
76.8
20.0
16.3
24.3
23.3
27.2
26.2
5.9
13.7
46.2
53.9
55.1
48.7
56.8
71.1
100.0
18.8
56.8
78.2
53.8
50.4
52.0
44.2
56.9
68.6
93.7
17.5
51.2
46.9
18.5
21.1
67.9
55.7
66.0
55.2
42.6
87.3
47.7
46.0
27.8
21.5
47.4
55.7
23.7
14.6
46.6
54.7
74.8
39.0
50.3
70.4
81.2
100.0
44.3
29.2
48.1
55.3
33.1
61.7
51.7
88.9
74.9
8.6
52.1
45.8
36.9
39.0
67.0
56.0
61.1
46.7
34.4
83.0
38.4
46.5
46.0
35.3
48.6
48.3
5.0
0.4
48.7
53.0
59.1
37.8
51.0
73.3
43.2
55.7
100.0
64.2
60.9
67.3
47.3
62.4
62.4
77.8
81.0
17.1
48.0
45.7
43.9
43.4
66.7
54.0
62.8
52.5
46.4
89.5
46.8
58.2
50.0
39.8
51.9
55.5
18.1
17.2
50.2
42.0
37.1
35.1
43.6
67.3
21.8
70.8
35.8
100.0
54.4
50.5
29.8
35.7
43.1
54.6
77.9
12.2
33.1
29.6
21.6
33.3
57.7
62.3
49.2
40.9
34.2
72.9
35.6
36.7
37.6
20.1
27.8
41.4
12.1
7.2
47.4
59.9
53.1
47.0
58.1
69.3
46.2
51.9
39.1
45.6
100.0
55.5
44.1
65.3
55.3
55.3
60.4
8.6
28.6
36.8
38.4
45.9
57.3
55.4
73.4
47.3
35.3
81.7
37.7
48.3
32.3
73.4
50.3
49.3
11.4
4.1
48.9
26.3
44.6
44.6
47.3
61.0
49.6
44.7
32.7
49.5
44.5
100.0
42.7
29.1
54.5
60.6
69.2
12.0
35.4
37.3
31.7
30.5
53.5
50.2
58.8
46.0
25.5
79.0
33.3
40.1
27.1
26.4
36.6
44.2
11.6
21.5
47.5
62.2
37.2
57.2
55.0
69.4
48.0
66.9
52.7
70.2
55.9
57.3
100.0
34.5
72.0
67.0
83.9
30.0
42.6
55.2
48.8
55.2
69.9
59.6
72.8
64.2
34.7
82.8
26.2
47.5
61.9
37.4
59.4
55.6
16.0
25.9
51.3
49.7
53.5
51.1
69.6
81.3
55.8
38.3
37.6
64.3
34.7
70.9
65.5
100.0
48.6
48.4
92.1
26.3
66.4
45.1
72.7
32.5
19.8
12.3
35.5
25.6
47.6
95.4
42.1
77.2
48.2
44.2
57.3
47.2
32.1
21.2
48.9
49.5
59.1
40.7
49.2
68.5
43.1
48.3
37.6
56.9
44.7
45.5
28.0
51.4
100.0
61.3
71.2
12.4
30.0
34.9
28.5
34.8
74.9
52.3
53.3
83.1
36.5
77.9
36.2
44.4
37.9
32.6
39.4
49.5
15.2
13.5
48.7
39.3
39.2
32.2
38.0
53.9
31.4
11.1
22.2
45.4
44.7
39.4
33.0
51.6
38.7
100.0
57.5
13.6
32.4
49.5
14.9
29.1
36.8
44.6
48.6
39.4
30.2
70.1
44.6
45.8
36.7
27.3
35.9
39.6
3.5
21.3
47.4
27.0
26.7
22.2
25.2
42.3
6.3
25.1
19.0
22.1
39.6
30.8
16.1
7.9
28.8
42.5
100.0
4.6
14.3
22.7
19.3
18.8
35.8
30.1
42.0
29.2
13.7
62.1
21.3
19.1
30.8
18.5
30.5
76.1
7.5
20.0
47.6
84.7
85.2
65.1
78.3
92.3
82.5
91.4
82.9
87.8
91.4
88.0
70.0
73.7
87.6
86.4
95.4
100.0
75.6
82.0
65.6
88.5
95.3
71.7
89.6
87.6
71.4
98.2
84.3
75.9
64.2
80.1
71.8
82.8
42.7
26.9
63.0
64.3
60.9
56.0
62.6
78.0
48.8
47.9
52.0
66.9
71.4
64.6
57.4
33.6
70.0
67.6
85.7
24.4
100.0
53.1
59.6
44.7
64.9
69.1
70.4
59.6
40.5
83.7
51.3
75.0
62.5
51.4
55.4
64.4
35.0
41.9
51.3
43.1
42.7
53.8
44.2
26.1
38.5
44.8
50.8
36.1
46.1
35.4
54.7
47.4
43.8
34.4
38.8
78.1
60.8
65.8
59.4
69.8
67.7
43.2
60.7
55.9
68.7
54.9
67.8
53.1
68.2
61.9
64.4
49.6
58.4
86.9
78.3
Communications Outlook 1999
106
Table 5.14. Balance of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998)
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 5.14. Balance of World Wide Web links between TLDs and gTLDs (July 1998) (cont.)
To
From
Australia
.au
Austria
.at
Belgium
.be
Canada
.ca
Czech Republic
.cz
Denmark
.dk
Finland
.fi
France
.fr
Germany
.de
Greece
.gr
Hungary
.hu
Iceland
.is
Ireland
.ie
Italy
.it
Japan
.jp
Korea
.kr
Luxembourg
.lu
Mexico
.mx
Netherlands
.nl
New Zealand
.nz
Norway
.no
Poland
.pl
Portugal
.pt
Spain
.es
Sweden
.se
Switzerland
.ch
Turkey
.tr
United Kingdom
.uk
United States
.us
COM
.com
ORG
.org
NET
.net
EDU
.edu
GOV
.gov
INT
.int
Total
total
Inter-domain
(ie. excluding
intra-domain)
Inter-domain TLD
(excluding intra and .com.,
.net,. org.)
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
COM
ORG
NET
EDU
GOV
INT
.nl
.nz
.no
.pl
.pt
.es
.se
.ch
.tr
.uk
.us
.com
.org
.net
.edu
.gov
.int
56.7
55.3
50.9
62.6
74.2
53.1
54.2
54.3
70.4
63.2
62.7
44.8
54.9
65.1
50.5
77.3
18.0
46.9
100.0
39.2
47.6
60.5
51.4
63.2
56.0
48.2
85.8
47.3
63.4
55.4
42.8
52.0
65.8
25.2
16.6
51.6
46.2
66.7
54.2
68.2
85.0
81.5
63.1
56.1
78.4
61.6
68.3
51.2
27.3
71.5
85.1
80.7
34.4
40.4
60.8
100.0
57.7
73.2
67.1
73.3
65.2
34.7
95.7
56.8
58.4
58.0
40.4
52.3
70.4
26.3
30.8
52.7
63.3
58.5
53.9
61.3
76.3
78.9
61.0
56.6
66.7
54.1
69.5
44.8
67.5
65.2
70.9
81.2
11.5
55.3
52.4
42.3
100.0
76.0
62.5
74.6
57.9
42.8
85.4
37.7
58.8
52.9
41.8
61.7
60.9
18.5
13.9
51.6
53.1
39.7
36.2
51.7
52.8
32.1
33.0
33.3
42.3
42.7
46.5
30.1
80.2
25.1
63.2
64.2
4.7
35.1
39.5
26.8
24.0
100.0
68.2
56.1
38.9
20.4
78.9
30.6
37.2
35.0
22.0
34.2
40.1
11.9
10.5
47.3
62.1
53.9
39.8
45.8
69.2
44.3
44.0
46.0
37.7
44.6
49.8
40.4
87.7
47.7
55.4
69.9
28.3
30.9
48.6
32.9
37.5
31.8
100.0
61.7
27.7
25.5
59.6
20.7
37.8
37.7
33.1
41.0
42.3
16.8
25.4
47.0
46.4
44.4
31.4
62.0
54.4
34.0
38.9
37.2
50.8
26.6
41.2
27.2
64.5
46.7
51.4
58.0
10.4
29.6
36.8
26.7
25.4
43.9
38.3
100.0
40.8
23.5
61.8
35.6
34.7
46.1
31.7
30.7
38.0
10.5
7.7
48.0
62.0
47.6
40.8
50.3
65.3
44.8
53.3
47.5
59.1
52.7
54.0
35.8
74.4
16.9
60.6
70.8
12.4
40.4
44.0
34.8
42.1
61.1
72.3
59.2
100.0
33.5
81.5
38.3
50.8
51.1
33.1
39.4
51.6
12.9
7.9
49.1
74.0
60.0
53.5
70.5
81.1
57.4
65.6
53.6
65.8
64.7
74.5
65.3
52.4
63.5
69.8
86.3
28.6
59.5
51.8
65.3
57.2
79.6
74.5
76.5
66.5
100.0
91.5
65.4
76.4
50.9
74.8
60.9
71.0
62.4
59.0
53.5
15.4
20.0
15.8
10.8
23.2
12.7
17.0
10.5
27.1
18.3
21.0
17.2
4.6
22.1
29.9
37.9
1.8
16.3
14.2
4.3
14.6
21.1
40.4
38.2
18.5
8.5
100.0
14.7
11.6
11.3
18.5
14.0
25.5
6.9
2.6
36.8
64.5
58.3
46.4
74.2
80.0
52.3
61.6
53.2
64.4
62.3
66.7
73.8
57.9
63.8
55.4
78.7
15.7
48.7
52.7
43.2
62.3
69.4
79.3
64.4
61.7
34.6
85.3
100.0
64.1
52.4
41.3
48.7
65.5
37.5
7.7
51.5
61.7
48.9
39.9
49.0
83.7
54.0
53.5
41.8
63.3
51.7
59.9
52.5
22.8
55.6
54.2
80.9
24.1
25.0
36.6
41.6
41.2
62.8
62.2
65.3
49.2
23.6
88.4
35.9
100.0
61.9
43.5
56.5
60.9
19.9
9.8
51.3
56.9
60.4
47.8
53.1
75.7
72.2
54.0
50.0
62.4
67.7
72.9
38.1
51.8
62.1
63.3
69.2
35.8
37.5
44.6
42.0
47.1
65.0
62.3
53.9
48.9
49.1
88.7
47.6
38.1
100.0
37.2
35.5
55.0
14.4
6.0
49.0
63.1
80.6
52.3
63.4
76.7
78.5
64.7
60.2
79.9
26.6
73.6
62.6
55.8
67.4
72.7
81.5
19.9
48.6
57.2
59.6
58.2
78.0
66.9
68.3
66.9
25.2
81.5
58.7
56.5
62.8
100.0
58.3
67.8
21.6
18.6
54.1
69.1
56.2
49.0
57.5
72.8
52.6
51.4
48.1
72.2
49.7
63.4
40.6
42.7
60.6
64.1
69.5
28.2
44.6
48.0
47.7
38.3
65.8
59.0
69.3
60.6
39.1
86.0
51.3
43.5
64.5
41.7
100.0
51.1
14.9
21.7
54.2
45.3
53.5
45.2
49.6
73.8
44.3
51.7
44.5
58.6
50.7
55.8
44.4
52.8
50.5
60.4
23.9
17.2
35.6
34.2
29.6
39.1
59.9
57.7
62.0
48.4
29.0
74.5
34.5
39.1
45.0
32.2
48.9
100.0
22.2
7.3
48.4
83.9
92.8
81.3
87.5
94.1
76.3
95.0
81.9
87.9
88.6
88.4
84.0
67.9
84.8
96.5
92.5
57.3
65.0
74.8
73.7
81.5
88.1
83.2
89.5
87.1
37.6
93.1
62.5
80.1
85.6
78.4
85.1
77.8
100.0
50.0
60.4
87.1
94.4
79.3
89.7
86.3
85.4
99.6
82.8
92.8
95.9
78.5
74.1
78.8
86.5
78.7
80.0
73.1
58.1
83.4
69.2
86.1
89.5
74.6
92.3
92.1
41.0
97.4
92.3
90.2
94.0
81.4
78.3
92.7
50.0
100.0
61.6
55.5
58.4
56.6
36.6
39.4
40.0
46.5
62.7
16.8
55.1
54.9
44.8
61.9
59.8
42.6
81.3
89.8
72.7
78.2
71.6
56.8
54.3
58.0
63.8
78.3
26.8
74.6
75.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
65.3
87.8
92.7
Internet Infrastructure
107
Communications Outlook 1999
These matrices raise a very large number of possible research and discussion topics. The reasons why
users link from one domain to another have no doubt many social and economic factors, including, cultural,
linguistic, trade, geographical, and so forth. However, an important factor is the relative development of the
Internet in different countries. Attractive content has to exist under a certain domain and has to be accessible
(i.e. some users link to the same content under one domain rather than another based on infrastructure performance), before users will link to a URL. Linkages between domains provide a interesting indicator for further
analysis of comparative performance even though allowances need to be made for gTLD registrations across
different countries.
The most obvious and important question is how closely the relative proportion of hypertext links
between domains resembles Internet traffic flows between those domains. In addition, in the absence of data
on Internet traffic flows between countries, might the number of links be taken as an indicator of the importance
of content in one domain for users in another domain. If so, might this be a consideration in debates over the
financing of international infrastructure. In addition, could this indicator be used to inform decisions aiming at
developing more direct traffic exchange between neighbouring countries rather than sending traffic via other
countries and continents.
One future topic might be to focus on how closely Internet linkages from one domain to another resemble
the relative importance of telephony routes. The way in which Internet linkages differ from traditional communication patterns may suggest more about Internet use and how electronic commerce is developing than the
similarities. One aspect of this might be to examine the importance of geography in determining linkages. For
example, do users link more to distant countries than to neighbouring countries because they have easier
access to traditional media from neighbouring countries? Another aspect might be language. For example, do
users put more content aimed at international consumption under .com than under their national domains?
108
OECD 1999
Chapter 6
BROADCASTING SERVICES
Broadcasting Market
The broadcasting market in the OECD area generated a US$145.3 billion revenue in 1997, with an annual
growth rate of 3.4 per cent since 1995 (Table 6.1). Revenues were US$135.8 billion in 1995 and US$141.1 billion
in 1996. Almost all Member countries have shown an increase in market revenue, with several countries experiencing relatively high growth: Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Turkey
and the United Kingdom all had growth rates exceeding 5 per cent. The television market continued to account
for a major portion of the total broadcasting market, with an 84.4 per cent share in 1997, reaching
US$122.6 billion (Table 6.2).
The share among Member countries of the total broadcasting market has remained relatively stable
(Table 6.1). The revenues of the top five countries – the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom
and France – continue to account for nearly 80 per cent of the total market, with the United States still having
the dominant share of 40.2 per cent, followed by Japan with 14.2 per cent.
Audio-visual turnover of the 50 leading companies world-wide amounted to US$157.5 billion in 1996
(Table 6.3). Of the 50 audio-visual companies listed, 49 are from OECD countries. Among these leading
50 companies, 36 provide broadcasting services, with their total turnover accounting for 64.3 per cent of the
total audio-visual turnover. The largest terrestrial broadcasting companies continue to be the leading players
in the market, but the prominent cable television companies such as Viacom and TCI, and the rapidly developing pay-TV companies such as Canal Plus and BSkyB, are also ranked in the list.
Market drivers
The main factors driving market growth in the broadcasting sector are the continuous stable increase of
advertising revenue and the remarkable development of the pay-TV market. Advertising revenues of television
broadcasters in the OECD area surpassed US$63.5 billion in 1997, showing an uninterrupted growth of 3.6 per
cent since 1995 (Table 6.4). Although the United States and Japan continue to take the lead with revenue of over
US$25 billion and US$11.7 billion, respectively, the highest growth rates were seen mainly in the European
countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway and Turkey.
Advertising revenues continue to be the primary source of financing for the television market among OECD
countries, although the relative importance of this revenue has been declining from 58.2 per cent in 1991, to
52.4 per cent in 1997 (Table 6.4). The increase in revenue was due mainly to the introduction of advertisingsupported private channels in terrestrial broadcasting in Europe during the 1980s. However, advertising is also
subject to certain regulations in most European countries. The European Union’s “Television Without Frontiers”
Directive (89/552/EEC) adopted in 1989 and amended in 1997, sets up general criteria for advertising ceilings
indicating an upper limit for daily transmission time and every given clock hour, and similar or tighter limitations having been implemented in individual countries.
The markets of cable television and pay-TV have been the most important driving force behind the broadcasting sector in the OECD area during the last decade. Increasing by 40.3 per cent since 1991, subscription fees
resulted in US$38.9 billion revenue in the OECD area in 1997 (Table 6.5). Since 1995 subscription fees have
increased by 5.8 per cent. Countries with the most mature cable networks – Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands,
OECD 1999
109
Communications Outlook 1999
Sweden and the United States – are also those with the lowest growth rates in television subscription. However,
most other countries have shown high growth during the last two years, with many growing by over 20 per cent.
The pronounced increase seen in Portugal is the result of the rapid diffusion of cable television which commenced in 1993 by TV Cabo Portugal, a subsidiary of the telecommunication operator Portugal Telecom.
With the emergence and rapid development of cable television and pay-TV networks offering premium
services such as movies and sport via various transmission platforms, e.g. terrestrial, satellite or cable, subscription fees from these services have become a significant and essential revenue stream for the television industry in many OECD countries. Subscription revenues now make up 32.1 per cent of television market revenues
in the OECD area. This percentage is more than double that of public funding and advertising revenue and the
advent of digital TV is accelerating this trend.
The cable television and pay-TV market, with subscription revenue of US$22.4 billion in 1997 (46 per cent
of total US broadcasting revenue), is the largest in the OECD area. This is due to the high penetration rate of
cable television and to the well-developed digital direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services provided by major
operators such as DirectTV/USSB, Primestar and Echostar. The DBS sector in the United States had 7.91 million
subscribers as of September 1998, which amounts to an increase of 42.5 per cent over the previous year.
BSkyB and Canal Plus are currently the central players in the European pay-TV market. Launching its service in 1989, BSkyB has achieved a leading position in pay-TV services in the United Kingdom through its high
investment in sport and film rights. The company’s Sky services are transmitted either through direct-to-home
(DTH) satellite or cable networks. The number of subscribers to Sky services in the United Kingdom grew to
5.86 million as of June 1997, showing a 15 per cent increase compared to the previous reported year, with one
in four UK households now paying to receive the service. BSkyB also reported a £1.270 million turnover
between July 1996 and June 1997, a 26 per cent increase over the previous reported year, and continues to
expand its channel through investment either in wholly owned or joint venture channels. BSkyB now owns and
operates eleven wholly owned and nine joint venture channels.
Canal Plus, the French analogue and digital pay-TV provider founded in 1984, which offered a single
encrypted premium channel via over-the-air transmission in its initial stages, has expanded to provide a package of programmes and services via cable and satellite distribution. CanalSatellite, a subsidiary of the company, was the first operator in France to offer satellite broadcasting nation-wide in 1992. NC Numéricâble,
another subsidiary of the company, operates cable networks in 33 sites around France. The company is significantly broadening the scope of its international operation, which now covers Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands
and the Nordic countries, Poland and Spain. The number of subscribers to Canal Plus’s service reached
5.37 million in France and 4.09 million in the international market, increasing by 16.6 per cent in total from the
previous year.
Public funding is the third source of revenue for the television market, although its significance is declining
relative to other sources. In general, public funding is provided through licence fees paid by individuals and/or
subsidies provided by public bodies. Public funding in the OECD amounted to US$18.6 billion in 1997 (Table 6.6),
showing a very small increase of 0.1 per cent over the last two years and there have been reductions in the availability of these funds in several countries. Notably, the dependence of the television market on public funding
clearly varies between the United States and the European countries. While public funding accounts for only
2.8 per cent of total market revenue in the United States, the ratio varies from around 20 per cent to a high of
60 per cent in many European countries.
In terms of GDP, broadcasting market revenues were equivalent to 0.66 per cent of total OECD GDP
in 1997, having increased from 0.61 per cent in 1995 (Table 6.7). Additionally, broadcasting revenue per inhabitant averaged US$13 207 in the OECD area (Table 6.7), also growing at 2.8 per cent since 1995.
Broadcasting network dimensions
110
The number of broadcasting companies in OECD countries as of 1997 are shown in Table 6.8. In terms of
major television broadcasting companies whose remit is to provide national terrestrial coverage, most OECD
countries have a mixture of public and private companies, although public companies continue to play a core
role. Public companies responsible for providing national coverage exist in all OECD countries, with the exception of Luxembourg and Mexico. Furthermore, although responsibility for nation-wide access is generally
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
vested in a single public company, two or more public companies exist in several countries – Australia,
Denmark, France, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there are no
private companies in the national terrestrial television market in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland,
Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland. Due to market opening in many other European
countries carried out in the 1980s, however, more private companies are entering the market and generating
competition.
The status of major terrestrial television companies with national, regional or linguistic coverage in
Member countries is shown in Table 6.9. In general, public companies provide more than one channel in many
countries, while private companies are limited to one channel for service provision. For instance, public companies in Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey are allocated three or
more channels. This feature shows a clear contrast in the structure of service provision between public and
private companies.
In many countries terrestrial transmission is provided through separate entities (Table 6.9). The broadcasting company itself does not possess its own transmission infrastructure, and signal transmission is assigned to
a separate network provider in these cases. This is the situation in Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and the United Kingdom. In some countries the public telecommunication operator (PTO) or a subsidiary of the PTO provides the transmission infrastructure; this is the case in Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary,
Portugal, Switzerland and Turkey. On the other hand, in some other countries, a separate entity, independent
of the telecommunication operator, provides the transmission infrastructure; this is the case in the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom. NOZEMA is the exclusive Dutch network provider for public and private broadcasters
in the Netherlands. Similarly, Castle Transmission Services is a consortium led by the Castle Tower Corporation
(CTC) in the United Kingdom which purchased BBC’s Home Service Transmission business in February 1997. In
other cases, such as in Australia and Sweden, the transmission infrastructure is controlled by the state itself or
by a state-controlled company. As convergence between infrastructures and services advances, there will likely
be pressure for more competition in the provision of national broadcasting transmission networks in the future.
The development in the 1990s of satellite television broadcasting offering pay-TV services is currently
changing the nature of the broadcasting market. Although the traditional terrestrial broadcasting companies
still continue to be the main participants in the market, the emergence of satellite broadcasting and further diffusion of cable television is generating competition in the broadcasting sector of many countries. Such services
are vastly increasing the number of television channels available throughout the OECD area, providing more
choice for viewers (Table 6.10), and digitalisation is spurring this move.
Broadcasting service development
The number of households in a country provides a benchmark for the potential market for broadcasting
services. The penetration rate of households with television sets in OECD countries from 1995 to 1997 is shown
in Table 6.11. Households with television sets have surpassed 90 per cent of total households in most countries, exceeding 95 per cent in many cases. Consequently, the rate of growth has shown little increase, indicating maturity in this market. This is clearly shown in the data on television sets where, in most cases, the number
of television sets per household exceeds one set per household (Table 6.11). Although mature, this market is
also changing with the introduction of digital television and the potential to use television sets for future multimedia services.
The amount of television viewing time is also a key indicator for television broadcasting companies. In
terms of selling advertising in competition with other media, average viewing time is a major index (Table 6.12).
However, emerging trends such as the incorporation of television reception capability into personal computers
is expected to complicate the traditional method of measuring viewing time to some extent.
In the case of cable television and pay-TV services, the number of subscribers is the basic indicator used
to describe service development. The number of subscribers to cable television services in the OECD area
reached a total of 125.5 million in 1997, growing at an annual rate of 4.6 per cent since 1995 (Table 6.13). This
was equivalent to a penetration rate of 34.8 per cent of total households in 1997. However, the penetration rate
of cable television service, as measured by the ratio of subscribers to total households, varies widely among
OECD 1999
111
Communications Outlook 1999
Member countries (Table 6.13). The penetration rate is in the region of 90 per cent for Belgium, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Switzerland. It also exceeds 60 per cent in Canada, Sweden and the United States, and
50 per cent in Germany and Norway. However, the penetration rate in Australia, Greece, Italy, New Zealand,
Spain and Turkey remains very low, with a rate of under 5 per cent in all countries, and even under 1 per cent
in some cases. Low penetration rates in these countries are mainly due to the slow start of cable television services or to a relatively well-developed terrestrial television market. However, in countries which have only
recently begun developing cable television infrastructures, growth rates have been relatively high.
A continuous high growth rate is anticipated in these countries, not only in the development of the cable
television market itself, but in some cases where telecommunication markets are open to competition, in the
availability of cable networks as an alternative infrastructure for the local loop. The perception that cable infrastructures may form a core infrastructure in the future multimedia environment has led to investment in cable
television operators by large companies outside the sector, with, for example, AT&T buying out TCI and
Microsoft investing in cable company Comcast.
The number of subscribers for direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service – both analogue and digital – in the
OECD area for 1997 is estimated as 48.0 million (Table 6.14). Growth in this market has been rapid, at an average rate of 17.3 per cent among Member countries since 1995, and with a remarkable increase of over 25 per
cent in Greece, Hungary, Italy, Sweden and the United States. The diffusion rate varied significantly across
countries, with an average of 10.3 per cent. Diffusion rates are expected to show continuous growth with the
emerge of digitalisation supporting this trend. The increase in the number of subscribers to the most popular
satellite television channel packages in OECD countries will endorse the rapid development of this market
(Table 6.15).
Pay-per-view (PPV) is another service which is pushing the development of the pay-TV market. In a payper-view system, instead of subscribing to a single channel or package of channels, the customer pays to view
a single item or event, which can be a movie, a music concert or a sporting event. PPV is marketed in various
ways. Sometimes the service is sold on a “per night” or a “24-hour access” basis, while a common way to sell
PPV sports is on a “season-ticket” basis.
Since first introduced on cable networks in the United States, PPV services have spread widely among
OECD countries. In Europe, service started in 1994 and as of 1997 is now available in seven countries
– Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The number of services has doubled every year and further expansion is anticipated in the coming years.
Regulatory Framework
Definitions of broadcasting are fairly similar across the OECD (Table 6.16), reflecting an emphasis on transmission of programming to the general public. Public involvement in the sector has usually been justified on
the basis of spectrum scarcity as well as the social and cultural impact of broadcasting services. Broadcasting
services are generally subject to licensing which, although it has its rationale in spectrum scarcity, in reality, has
also been used as a measure for regulating the broadcasting market.
Some public broadcasters have a universal service mandate in that they have responsibility for ensuring
that their signal can be accessed nation-wide. In the OECD area it has been possible to receive at least one
terrestrial television channel in any geographical area since 1992. “Must carry” rules, which require cable television and/or satellite operators to provide capacity for certain services, have been adopted in many countries
(Table 6.17). Cable television operators in these countries are generally required to carry programmes of the
public broadcasting company. However, in some cases they are also required to carry programmes of private
broadcasters which provide national coverage, and local broadcasting stations. In Denmark and Portugal, cable
television operators are specifically required to reserve a certain number of channels for the transmission of
local or regional channels.
112
Considering the social and cultural impact of broadcasting services, various regulations have also been
imposed on content aspects. The stated aims of content regulations are generally related to culture, programme standards or ensuring reception of appropriate service by certain groups (such as programmes for
children). Content regulation has also been used to support the development of national programmes and to
place limitations on the use of foreign programmes. Many Member countries impose a quota requirement for
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
domestic programmes on broadcasting services, with the exception of Austria, the Czech Republic, Ireland,
Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States, where no regulations are imposed
(Table 6.18). The case is conspicuous in the European countries. The previously mentioned “Television Without
Frontiers” Directive of the European Union (89/552/EEC) stipulates that broadcasters should reserve a majority
proportion of their transmission time to European programmes. There are certain concerns that such quotas
may diminish programme variety, artificially increase the market power of domestic programme production
firms, and reduce the productive efficiency of these firms by restraining competitive pressure.
Impact of convergence
Rapid convergence, in technologies, services and markets, linked with the development of digital technology, is allowing various content, e.g. voice, data, audio or video, to be provided through different networks
regardless of their characteristics. Different network platforms are becoming increasingly substitutable from
the technical perspective as they attain the ability to carry essentially the same services. Taking advantage of
this technical progress, a number of market participants are strategically expanding service provision beyond
their traditional sectors through cross-platform and cross-product development. Data services provided via
digital broadcasting platforms, online services combined with television via digital satellites and cable
modems, webcasting of various audio-visual services, are just some examples of this advancing phenomena.
Furthermore, cross-ownership is also developing in the communications sector as enterprises enter traditionally separated markets seeking further business opportunities. The sectors impacted by convergence have
shown a growing trend towards mergers and alliances. In 1996, more than 15 per cent of the total value of worldwide mergers and acquisitions was generated by the communications sector industry and the trend seems to
be intensifying.
The advance of convergence in technology, service provision and market structure is raising various challenges for the existing regulatory frameworks of the communications sector, and especially the broadcasting
sector. While the current regulatory framework for broadcasting services was designed for a national, analogue
and mono-media environment, the market is undergoing changes from globalisation, digitalisation and multimedia provision. All these are raising important policy issues and putting pressure on policy makers to begin
reviewing existing frameworks. Some of these policy issues are raised in the following sections.
Infrastructure/service specific regulations
The broadcasting sector has traditionally been regulated on a network/service specific regulatory basis
where separate regulations have applied to services according to the means of transmission – terrestrial, cable
or satellite. Furthermore, there has been a clear distinction between telecommunication and broadcasting
infrastructures in terms of regulation due to the traditionally different nature of transmission and content of the
two sectors. However, the development of convergence is increasingly challenging the current regulatory
framework.
One such challenge is that a number of new services do not come under the existing regulatory framework.
Webcasting – a service transmitting audio or video content over the Internet – is one example of such a new
service, with characteristics closely resembling traditional broadcasting services. The regulatory treatment of
webcasting services in OECD countries is described in Table 6.19. Although the service is clearly identified as
a telecommunications service in Denmark and the Netherlands, many other countries indicate that webcasting
is yet to be defined or regulated. However, this indication leaves the possibility that it may be regulated in the
future depending on whether the service attains a wider market size or is made more widely available through
terminal enhancements.
Uncertainty as to the regulatory treatment of a service and the threat of regulation to service presently provided in an unrestricted form on the market can be a disincentive to investment and technological change. It
is in this context that there is an increasing need to determine at an early stage how new services will be
treated. This process of review and reflection has already started. The European Commission in its Green Paper
on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, published in December 1997,
put forward as one proposition the creation of a new comprehensive regulatory model to cover the whole range
of existing and new services in the communications sector as one option for a future regulatory framework.
OECD 1999
113
Communications Outlook 1999
Regulatory structures
Traditionally the telecommunication and broadcasting industries have been regulated by separate organisations in many OECD countries (Table 6.20). The responsibility of the broadcasting regulatory authorities
includes audio-visual policy, network (carriage) regulation, frequency allocation and content regulation. In this
context, the policy and regulatory structures for telecommunications are more cohesive in most countries,
whereas broadcasting responsibilities are split across a number of different administrative bodies. Italy, Japan,
Switzerland and the United States are the only countries where the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors are supervised by the same administrative body. Current regulatory structures in many Member countries
may need to be reviewed in the future, especially in light of convergence.
Some countries have started to examine and revise their existing regulatory structures in this context. In
the United Kingdom, following a broad consultation with the public and private sector, the Culture, Media and
Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons has proposed to establish the Department of Communications which will assume the responsibilities of the currently separate telecommunications and broadcasting
departments. It has also recommended the absorption of all current regulatory bodies into one Communications Regulation Commission which will hold overall responsibility for statutory regulation of telecommunications, broadcasting and communications infrastructure.
Ownership restrictions
The pressure of convergence also brings into focus the restrictions that have been placed by some OECD
countries in terms of cross-ownership between the traditionally separate communications markets. Table 6.21
describes the various cross-ownership restrictions imposed between the different segments of the communications market in individual countries. About one-third of the OECD countries impose some type of regulation
in this context. Although many of these restrictions were put in place to prevent dominance in a specific market
and to ensure greater pluralism in the audio-visual market, the necessity for reviewing current regulations to
determine whether they may continue as best practices to meet policy goals is arising from the viewpoint of
stimulating further competition and developing new services and applications.
Several other forms of ownership restrictions exist in relation to the broadcasting market: regulations on
ownership in the television market itself, cross-media regulation and foreign ownership regulation. With the
exception of the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden, many OECD
countries place specific ownership restrictions on television services over and above the safeguards provided
through general competition law (Table 6.22). Such ownership regulations generally take two forms: limiting the
share holding of a single entity in a broadcasting enterprise; and/or limiting the number of broadcasting
licences that can be owned by a single entity. The rationale for these provisions has been to limit overconcentration, thus avoiding market distortion, and also to promote diversity to ensure pluralism. However,
rapid technical innovation and globalisation in the market is increasing industry demand to review the current
ownership restrictions in order to realise economies of scale through business expansion or strategic mergers
and to develop new revenue streams. While most countries impose stricter regulation on the traditional terrestrial television market compared to cable and satellite television markets due to spectrum scarcity, some countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom view all television service providers as equivalent competitors
in a single market irrespective of the distribution platform. Furthermore, considering the strong social and cultural impact of the media on the public, some countries impose specific restrictions on cross-media ownership
which typically restrict the common holding of broadcasting and newspapers in the same geographical market
(Table 6.23). Foreign ownership restrictions imposed on broadcasting services are shown in Table 6.24, indicating no restrictions in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Sweden.
Emerging Trends: Digital Television
114
Digitalisation has had an important impact on broadcasting markets in recent years. The television market
is heading towards digitalisation in order to fully participate in the business opportunities created by convergence. Digital transmission allows a greater number of television signals to be compressed and transmitted in
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
a very much narrower radio spectrum employing less bandwidth compared to analogue. This enables digital
television to provide improved quality of image and sound, and a significant increase in the number of channels which can be transmitted within the same bandwidth, thus offering a wider choice to viewers. Furthermore,
digital television will have the ability to introduce enhanced data service and various interactive services, from
electronic commerce to video-on-demand and high-speed Internet access. Mobility of all these services may
also become reality.
Digital television is emerging rapidly in the OECD area. Most OECD countries have already set out their
plans for introducing digital television or are in the process of doing so (Table 6.25). The development of digital
television has been based on the three major transmission platforms: terrestrial, satellite and cable. Satellite
and cable were the first to deliver digital television services due to the fewer technical problems and a more
simple regulatory environment compared to the terrestrial system. However, the trend is also extending to terrestrial broadcasting.
Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) was the first market to develop digital service. The DBS system offers several advantages compared to other transmission platforms. Because the transmission network is made available through independent operators, it is an open system. Additionally, the coverage area is greater than that
of terrestrial or cable systems.
Digital DBS service was first launched in the United States by DirecTV in June 1994, followed by other market entrants such as PrimeStar and EchoStar. In European countries, although several television channels had
already been transmitted in digital compression on a trial basis, digital DBS was launched in earnest in 1996.
Digital service is now available in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom,
with further expansion planned. A total of more than 200 channels are currently available in the European
region, showing a rapid increase in the number of subscribers. Canal Plus has been the leading company in the
European market since its launch of CanalSatellite Numérique on the French market in April 1996, followed by
service provision by its subsidiaries in other countries. In October 1998, BSkyB launched the first digital service
in the United Kingdom, offering 140 television channels to subscribers. In Japan, digital DBS also commenced
in 1996. PerfecTV, the first digital satellite broadcaster in the Japanese market, merged with JSkyB in May 1998
to form a new venture, SkyPerfecTV. This move was driven by competition from DirecTV which had launched
its own service in 1997. SkyPerfecTV and DirecTV are now providing 179 and 90 channels, respectively, as of
September 1998. A trial operation is also being carried out in Korea since 1996. Table 6.26 shows details of the
major broadcasting companies in the OECD area.
Although it lags relatively behind satellite provision, digital cable television has the potential ability to
deliver up to 200 television channels as well as providing various interactive services. Digital television in the
cable market was first introduced in the United States by TCI in 1997, followed by Japan in July 1998. Launch is
also expected in the United Kingdom in the first half of 1999 by cable companies such as Cable and Wireless
Communications.
Finally, terrestrial television is perceived to have a major advantage in the digital field because of its
simplicity, since the consumer will be able to receive service simply by purchasing or renting a digital signal
receiver (set-top-box). Broadcasting companies providing such service are expected to gain significant
commercial benefit due to increasing advertising revenues and additional subscription fees, as well as from
the set-top-boxes.
Many OECD countries are now moving actively towards the introduction of digital terrestrial television.
Although some countries are still at the discussion stage, many others have already established a fixed schedule (Table 6.27). The United Kingdom became the first country to launch digital terrestrial television in
September 1998 when service was commenced by the BBC. Furthermore, Ondigital, a joint venture between
the commercial ITV companies Carlton Communications and the Granada Group, is planning to provide a major
digital platform with 30 channels from November 1998. Service launch in the United States is also planned from
November 1998 by the top four networks providing digital transmission in the ten major cities. Sweden has also
announced digital service to commence by 1 January 1999 at the latest. Following these leading countries,
Canada and Spain have mapped out service launch during 1999. While requiring simulcast transmission for the
initial period, many of these countries have stipulated the expected termination period of analogue transmission in the introduction plan.
OECD 1999
115
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.1.
Broadcasting market revenue in OECD countries
In millions of US$
Total market revenue1
Australia2
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3
Japan
Korea4
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal5
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
CAGR
1995
1996
1997
507.47
1 066.01
1 590.63
4 131.64
268.47
899.99
606.34
7 729.84
12 964.86
974.70
473.38
557.11
1 115.64
1 615.67
4 424.93
292.84
947.23
605.36
7 952.06
13 684.10
994.09
504.82
553.76
1 126.35
1 674.46
4 675.86
318.09
985.17
620.90
8 332.70
14 345.84
1 012.12
514.27
4.46
2.79
2.60
6.38
8.85
4.63
1.19
3.83
5.19
1.90
4.23
0.37
0.78
1.17
3.04
0.20
0.66
0.45
5.69
9.55
0.72
0.35
0.39
0.79
1.15
3.14
0.21
0.67
0.43
5.64
9.70
0.70
0.36
0.38
0.78
1.15
3.22
0.22
0.68
0.43
5.73
9.87
0.70
0.35
368.58
4 186.94
19 227.34
1 683.41
13.57
4 313.02
2 038.13
388.19
4 799.81
19 868.94
1 772.83
14.32
4 707.45
2 137.15
407.21
4 595.48
20 648.84
1 048.70
14.55
5 028.97
2 207.69
5.11
4.77
3.63
–21.07
3.55
7.98
4.08
0.27
3.08
14.16
1.24
0.01
3.18
1.50
0.28
3.40
14.08
1.26
0.01
3.34
1.51
0.28
3.16
14.21
0.72
0.01
3.46
1.52
706.45
697.80
373.73
682.66
212.23
371.96
396.76
048.48
291.80
826.19
770.18
698.39
392.78
809.54
276.05
431.52
490.98
670.56
164.17
086.71
830.14
718.64
403.49
053.56
306.26
473.15
611.32
467.86
343.67
319.05
8.40
1.48
3.91
6.69
3.81
3.62
24.13
7.56
1.81
3.44
0.52
0.51
0.28
1.98
0.89
1.01
0.29
6.66
41.44
100.00
0.55
0.50
0.28
1.99
0.90
1.01
0.35
6.85
40.52
100.00
0.57
0.49
0.28
2.10
0.90
1.01
0.42
7.20
40.15
100.00
2
1
1
9
56
135
2
1
1
9
57
141
3
1
1
10
58
145
1995-97 (%)
Share of OECD countries (%)
1995
1996
1997
1.
2.
3.
4.
In general, figures consist of revenues from television and radio broadcasting.
Figures for Australia consist only of data from ABC.
Figures for Italy consist of broadcasting revenue of public and private terrestrial TV operators, cable television operators and digital DBS service operators.
Figures for Korea consist only of public terrestrial TV operators for 1995 and 1996, and of public and private terrestrial TV operators for 1997. Although
revenues show a decrease during 1995-97 due to exchange rate fluctuation, revenues increased by 9.2 per cent in domestic currency for the same period.
5.
Figures for Portugal consist only of television broadcasting.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
116
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.2.
Television broadcasting market revenue in OECD countries
In millions of US$
Total market revenue
1995
Australia2
Austria
Belgium
Canada3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy4
Japan
Korea5
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1
3
6
9
507.47
794.75
306.89
574.29
205.81
716.97
457.29
493.58
939.45
872.85
398.89
1996
1
3
6
10
557.11
836.51
327.59
846.00
232.66
763.44
459.28
691.28
595.37
886.89
428.63
CAGR
1997
1
4
7
11
1995-97 (%)
Share of OECD countries (%)
1995
1996
1997
553.76
844.21
382.80
053.29
254.05
801.95
475.18
029.17
212.39
902.17
442.55
4.46
3.06
2.86
6.49
11.10
5.76
1.94
4.04
6.21
1.67
5.33
0.44
0.69
1.14
3.13
0.18
0.63
0.40
5.68
8.69
0.76
0.35
0.47
0.70
1.12
3.23
0.20
0.64
0.39
5.62
8.90
0.74
0.36
0.45
0.69
1.13
3.30
0.21
0.65
0.39
5.73
9.14
0.74
0.36
313.60
4 186.94
16 553.07
1 683.41
3.54
3 753.00
1 748.36
331.26
4 799.81
17 163.15
1 772.83
3.91
4 061.50
1 827.26
350.40
4 595.48
17 873.80
1 048.70
4.02
4 323.07
1 872.85
5.70
4.77
3.91
–21.07
6.56
7.33
3.50
0.27
3.66
14.47
1.47
0.00
3.28
1.53
0.28
4.03
14.42
1.49
0.00
3.41
1.53
0.29
3.75
14.57
0.86
0.00
3.52
1.53
533.02
585.68
272.17
230.61
933.33
019.10
341.20
718.22
212.96
356.45
598.20
588.28
296.05
365.11
993.81
056.77
430.40
328.97
808.08
050.15
649.82
598.09
306.51
549.13
020.25
086.96
546.81
094.03
772.85
644.29
10.41
1.05
6.12
6.90
4.55
3.28
26.59
8.55
1.64
3.56
0.47
0.51
0.24
1.95
0.82
0.89
0.30
6.75
41.29
100.00
0.50
0.49
0.25
1.99
0.83
0.89
0.36
7.00
40.16
100.00
0.53
0.49
0.25
2.08
0.83
0.89
0.45
7.41
39.77
100.00
2
1
7
47
114
2
1
8
47
119
2
1
1
9
48
122
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In general, figures consist of advertising revenues, subscription revenues and public funding.
Figures for Australia consist only of data from ABC.
Figures for Canada include public funding for radio services of CBC.
Figures for Italy consist of broadcasting revenue of public and private organisations, cable television operators and digital DBS service operators.
Figures for Korea consist only of public terrestrial TV operators for 1995 and 1996, and of public and private terrestrial TV operators for 1997. Although
revenues show a decrease during 1995-97 due to exchange rate fluctuation, revenues increased by 9.2 per cent in domestic currency for the same period.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
117
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.3. Ranking by audiovisual turnover of the 50 leading companies in the world, 1996
In millions of US$
Rank Company
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Walt Disney/ABC
Viacom
Sony
Time Warner/TBS
Time-Warner Entertainment
ARD
News Corp
Polygram
NHK
General Electric/NBC
Bertelsmann
Seagram
Westinghouse/CBS
ThornEMI
Nintendo
BBC
CLT
RAI
Nippon Television Network
Fuji TV
Carlton
Kirch Group
Tokyo Broadcasting System
Canal Plus
Mediaset
PBS
TF1
Comcast
Sega
Organizacoes Globo
RTL
BSkyB
ZDF
TCI Communications
Cox Communications
Toho
SAT 1
Televisa
Home Shopping Network
France 3
France 2
Rank
Pro 7
SSR-SRG
Granada
ORF
Tribune
CBC-SRC
Asahi Broadcasting
Channel 4
Audiovisual turnover (50 companies)
Audiovisual turnover (Broadcasting companies)
Broadcasting companies/50 companies
Country
United States
United States
Japan
United States
United States
Germany
Australia
Netherlands
Japan
United States
Germany
Canada
United States
United Kingdom
Japan
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Italy
Japan
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
France
Italy
United States
France
United States
Japan
Brazil
Germany
United Kingdom
Germany
United States
United States
Japan
Germany
Mexico
United States
France
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Austria
United States
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
Audiovisual
turnover
Total
turnover
Audiovisual/
total (%)
14 714
9 818
9 087
7 655
7 498
6 790
6 200
5 628
5 617
5 232
4 879
4 876
4 145
3 952
3 713
3 336
2 938
2 792
2 784
2 690
2 662
2 660
2 282
2 202
2 031
1 956
1 893
1 836
1 830
1 760
1 711
1 600
1 452
1 339
1 239
1 219
1 122
1 103
1 068
1 064
1 053
967
966
951
937
885
877
836
820
809
157 474
101 260
64.30%
19 216
12 084
50 278
12 799
10 861
6 790
10 835
5 628
5 617
79 179
14 322
5 112
8 449
5 379
3 713
3 646
2 996
2 792
2 784
2 690
2 662
2 600
2 282
2 273
2 031
1 956
1 893
4 038
3 979
2 900
1 711
1 600
1 452
6 790
4 591
1 543
1 122
1 515
1 068
1 064
1 053
3 255
966
951
5 961
885
2 406
836
820
809
76.57
81.25
18.07
59.81
69.04
100.00
57.22
100.00
100.00
6.61
34.07
95.38
49.06
73.47
100.00
91.50
98.06
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
102.31
100.00
96.88
100.00
100.00
100.00
45.47
45.99
60.69
100.00
100.00
100.00
19.72
26.99
79.00
100.00
72.81
100.00
100.00
100.00
29.71
100.00
100.00
15.72
100.00
36.45
100.00
100.00
100.00
1.
2.
Companies which provide broadcasting services are indicated in bold and italics.
‘‘Audiovisual companies’’ are defined as companies whose main business is broadcasting, production of audiovisual programmes, audiovisual facilities,
distribution, and the publishing, distribution and marketing of both sound recording and video games.
Source: OECD, European Audiovisual Observatory ’98.
118
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.4.
Advertising revenue in the television broadcasting market
In millions of US$
Total advertising revenue
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy1
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1
2
4
2
11
3
1
4
24
59
CAGR
1995
1996
1997
..
297.24
424.66
321.64
111.44
217.37
194.16
639.77
080.81
769.43
122.83
..
105.12
303.20
081.85
..
3.36
157.65
637.90
..
189.05
376.71
217.37
814.59
340.92
250.72
170.85
060.00
244.81
133.45
..
305.66
435.69
415.71
139.30
235.41
196.08
736.69
472.27
784.82
146.66
..
111.78
646.30
374.20
..
3.72
378.68
689.67
..
238.24
378.13
222.16
885.92
354.56
260.75
230.38
224.91
641.22
508.91
..
297.18
477.45
499.71
154.67
260.51
209.33
918.27
775.11
800.51
152.57
..
118.84
638.06
666.56
..
3.82
615.19
720.35
..
275.26
385.69
226.94
939.72
372.29
271.18
317.13
414.70
964.26
475.30
1
2
4
2
11
3
1
4
24
61
1
2
4
2
11
3
1
4
24
63
Share
in total market revenue (%)
1995-97 (%)
1995
1996
1997
..
–0.01
6.03
6.52
17.81
9.47
3.83
5.14
8.17
2.00
11.45
..
6.33
7.02
2.60
..
6.63
7.00
6.27
..
20.67
1.18
2.18
3.39
4.50
4.00
36.24
4.28
1.47
3.61
..
37.40
32.49
36.98
54.15
30.32
42.46
40.65
41.06
88.15
30.79
..
33.52
55.01
66.95
..
94.92
84.14
36.49
..
35.47
64.32
79.87
81.35
36.53
24.60
50.07
52.60
51.35
52.72
..
36.54
32.82
36.81
59.87
30.84
42.69
40.90
42.21
88.49
34.22
..
33.74
55.13
66.27
..
95.14
83.19
37.74
..
39.83
64.28
75.04
79.74
35.68
24.67
53.53
50.73
51.54
52.70
..
35.20
34.53
37.00
60.88
32.48
44.05
41.52
42.59
88.73
34.48
..
33.92
57.41
65.27
..
95.02
83.63
38.46
..
42.36
64.49
74.04
76.09
36.49
24.95
58.00
48.55
51.18
52.44
1.
Figures for Italy consist of advertising revenue of public and private organisations and digital DBS service operators.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
119
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.5.
Subscription revenue in the television broadcasting market
In millions of US$
Total subscription revenue1
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1
2
2
1
1
21
34
CAGR
1995
1996
1997
..
186.62
575.27
727.84
16.73
223.72
52.25
116.38
270.64
4.00
25.98
..
142.78
214.86
485.22
..
0.18
585.46
662.96
..
122.00
61.58
10.14
416.02
144.24
369.66
29.67
719.75
538.34
702.29
..
198.16
583.20
819.65
21.59
243.94
55.06
260.30
523.93
4.64
26.88
..
150.87
291.82
772.86
..
0.19
670.96
671.59
..
126.28
66.69
25.33
479.19
146.75
393.31
59.33
196.98
770.33
559.83
..
211.50
594.84
884.52
29.80
255.58
58.21
373.80
829.18
6.17
29.79
..
161.13
297.02
125.23
..
0.20
696.23
685.30
..
131.88
71.81
34.77
556.56
148.30
409.04
89.00
732.27
445.33
857.46
1
2
2
1
2
21
36
1
2
2
2
2
22
38
Share in total market revenue (%)
1995-97 (%)
1995
1996
1997
..
6.46
1.69
4.44
33.46
6.88
5.55
5.91
11.62
24.20
7.08
..
6.23
17.58
19.62
..
5.41
9.05
1.67
..
3.97
7.99
85.18
15.66
1.40
5.19
73.20
26.05
2.08
5.82
..
23.48
44.02
48.34
8.13
31.20
11.43
32.59
22.84
0.46
6.51
..
45.53
5.13
8.97
..
5.08
15.60
37.92
..
22.89
10.51
3.73
18.65
15.45
36.27
8.70
22.28
45.62
30.94
..
23.69
43.93
47.31
9.28
31.95
11.99
33.78
23.82
0.52
6.27
..
45.54
6.08
10.33
..
4.86
16.52
36.75
..
21.11
11.34
8.56
20.26
14.77
37.22
13.78
26.38
45.54
31.32
..
25.05
43.02
46.49
11.73
31.87
12.25
33.77
25.23
0.68
6.73
..
45.98
6.46
11.89
..
4.98
16.10
36.59
..
20.29
12.01
11.34
21.83
14.54
37.63
16.28
30.04
46.02
32.10
1.
In general, figures consist of revenues from subscriptions to cable networks and to encrypted airwave and satellite channels.
2.
Figures for Italy consist of subscription revenues of private organisations, cable television operators and digital DBS service operators.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
120
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.6.
Public funding in the television broadcasting market
In millions of US$
Total public funding1
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1
3
1
3
1
1
18
CAGR
1995
1996
1997
..
310.89
306.96
923.71
77.64
275.88
210.88
687.43
588.00
99.42
250.08
..
65.70
530.02
986.00
..
0.00
11.86
447.50
..
221.97
147.39
44.66
..
448.17
398.72
175.85
938.47
429.81
577.01
..
332.69
308.70
990.21
71.77
284.09
208.14
694.29
599.17
97.43
255.09
..
68.61
646.01
016.09
..
0.00
11.65
466.00
..
233.68
143.46
48.56
..
492.50
402.71
176.21
907.08
396.53
850.67
..
335.53
310.51
658.00
69.58
285.86
207.64
737.10
608.10
95.49
260.19
..
70.43
525.90
082.01
..
0.00
18.50
467.20
..
242.68
140.59
44.80
52.85
499.66
406.74
175.45
947.06
363.26
605.13
1
3
1
4
1
1
18
1
3
1
4
1
1
18
Share in total market revenue (%)
1995-97 (%)
1995
1996
1997
..
3.89
0.58
–15.60
–5.33
1.79
–0.77
1.46
0.28
–2.00
2.00
..
3.54
–0.13
1.20
..
0.00
24.89
2.18
..
4.56
–2.33
0.16
..
5.59
1.00
–0.11
0.22
–2.35
0.08
..
39.12
23.49
25.84
37.72
38.48
46.12
25.99
36.10
11.39
62.69
..
20.95
36.54
24.08
..
0.00
0.32
25.60
..
41.64
25.17
16.41
..
48.02
39.12
51.54
25.12
3.03
16.56
..
39.77
23.25
25.75
30.85
37.21
45.32
25.32
33.97
10.99
59.51
..
20.71
34.29
23.40
..
0.00
0.29
25.50
..
39.06
24.39
16.40
..
49.56
38.11
40.94
22.90
2.92
16.15
..
39.74
22.46
16.23
27.39
35.65
43.70
24.71
32.18
10.58
58.79
..
20.10
33.20
22.84
..
0.00
0.43
24.95
..
37.35
23.51
14.62
2.07
48.97
37.42
32.09
21.41
2.80
15.37
1.
In general, figures consist of licence fees paid by indivisuals and operating subsidies provided by public bodies.
2.
Figures for Canada consist of public funding for CBC (TV and radio) and provincial education.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
121
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.7. Broadcasting market revenue as percentage of GDP and revenue per inhabitant
Percentage of GDP
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal2
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Revenue per inhabitant
(US$)
CAGR
1995
1996
1997
1995-97 (%)
..
0.46
0.58
0.74
0.53
0.52
0.48
0.50
0.54
0.85
1.08
..
0.57
0.39
0.37
0.37
0.08
1.51
0.51
..
0.48
0.59
0.37
0.48
0.52
0.44
0.23
0.82
0.80
0.61
..
0.49
0.60
0.76
0.52
0.54
0.48
0.52
0.58
0.81
1.15
..
0.55
0.40
0.43
0.38
0.08
1.43
0.54
..
0.49
0.52
0.38
0.48
0.51
0.49
0.27
0.84
0.77
0.63
..
0.55
0.69
0.78
0.60
0.60
0.53
0.60
0.68
0.85
1.17
..
0.56
0.40
0.49
0.37
0.09
1.24
0.61
..
0.53
0.53
0.41
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.32
0.82
0.75
0.66
..
8.93
8.88
2.84
5.80
7.76
4.75
8.97
12.38
–0.15
3.87
..
–0.99
2.03
14.27
–0.13
9.33
–9.15
8.96
..
5.29
–5.72
5.52
9.63
4.21
14.62
16.12
0.06
–3.47
8.48
1995
13
15
14
2
17
11
13
15
9
4
10
7
15
3
3
4
13
16
1
3
6
13
19
15
21
12
..
250.59
706.82
052.25
615.90
231.28
872.72
303.46
889.48
323.70
684.15
..
394.25
319.31
373.51
748.49
334.15
732.04
164.51
..
307.71
809.79
807.74
769.78
794.15
145.41
652.16
579.61
073.99
504.05
CAGR
1996
13
15
14
2
18
11
13
16
9
5
10
8
15
3
3
5
13
17
1
4
7
14
19
16
21
12
..
763.14
903.83
908.79
856.70
087.26
809.60
632.18
703.82
476.55
023.58
..
922.62
387.46
850.64
912.32
475.73
077.17
721.67
..
713.43
809.25
004.69
081.56
469.33
816.17
794.50
632.09
215.60
901.00
1997
13
16
15
3
18
12
14
17
9
5
11
8
16
2
3
5
14
19
1
4
7
14
20
17
21
13
..
801.62
435.61
615.86
107.26
772.29
075.07
233.71
454.48
619.08
147.85
..
441.70
028.30
435.19
293.90
489.21
334.02
096.74
..
022.46
860.08
116.40
688.29
770.01
246.70
973.84
986.01
477.67
207.28
1995-97 (%)
..
2.06
2.29
5.42
8.99
4.38
0.85
3.44
4.81
1.57
4.83
..
4.92
4.73
3.40
–21.77
2.30
6.17
3.48
..
8.00
1.38
3.97
6.57
3.48
2.84
22.20
7.45
0.95
2.77
1.
Although figures of Korea for revenue per inhabitant show a decrease for 1995-97 due to exchange rate fluctuations, revenues increased by 8.3 per cent in
domestic currency for the same period.
2.
Figures of Portugal consist only of television broadcasting.
Source: OECD, Observatoire Mondial des Systemes de Communication (1997).
122
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 6.8.
Number of broadcasting companies in the OECD area
Terrestrial television
Direct broadcast satellite
Radio
Cable television
National coverage
Local coverage
Public
Private
Private
Australia
2
3
0
50
Austria
Belgium1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark2
1
1
2
1
2
0
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
1
4
2
1
Hungary
Iceland
Public
Public
Digital
Private
Total
0
4
4
2
3
0
0
0
11
271
3
271
31
0
..
0
..
4
0
8
30
70
..
0
0
..
405
73
..
405
73
40
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
3
14
10
0
1
8
0
3
15
8
115
1
5
1
0
105
106
86
91
Approx. 60
0
0
0
..
16
1
0
..
21
0
1
1
2
0
0
..
63
..
..
..
..
..
74
3
2
..
0
..
Ireland
1
0
0
0
1
11
12
..
..
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
1
1
3
0
0
9
5
0
1
0
1
1
19
..
132
650
130
9
..
467
0
208
0
0
0
1
1 611
77
6
335
1
1 819
77
6
335
1
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
Netherlands
New Zealand
18
1
0
2
122
0
0
12
269
0
210
2
479
2
18
0
0
1
Norway
Poland
1
1
1
0
0
..
30
..
..
..
..
..
50
10
2
..
22
..
Portugal
1
2
0
0
9
9
18
0
0
Spain
Sweden3
Switzerland
1
1
1
3
1
0
80
1
0
200
1
2
0
..
..
15
..
..
15
..
..
0
..
0
0
..
0
Turkey
1
16
0
245
1
46
47
1
30
2
..
52
8
..
85
1
..
378
2
..
2 102
0
..
506
5
..
3 275
5
..
3 974
0
..
44
105
..
199
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Public
Analogue
Private
Public
Private
Service
not available
0
0
Service
not available
0
2
2
4
Service
not available
1
1
0
3
0
2
Service
not available
0
7
Service
not available
Service
not available
1
4
1
2
2
0
0
1
Service
not available
18
6
Service
not available
0
0
Service
not available
Service
not available
0
2
..
..
Service
not available
Service
not available
0
6
..
..
25
40
National coverage
Public
Private
Local coverage
Public
Private
2
4
2
294
1
1
0
0
0
0
53
235
1
1
1
0
4
..
0
1
..
174
75
..
1
5
1
5
1
15
18
0
0
48
8
28
61
1 200
164
241
4
2
7
116
1
1
10
21
1
1
3
1
0
18
6
7
5
0
1
1
0
0
198
1 559
184
38
16
1 150
18
2
7
10
332
0
0
50
2
1
0
300
1
2
0
320
18
1
1
6
0
0
681
150
0
35
85
19
1
36
1
1 163
1
..
75
3
..
146
1
..
1 469
64
..
7 617
123
Broadcasting Services
1.
Numbers for terrestrial broadcasting in Belgium represent the French community.
2.
Cable television service in Denmark is liberalised. There are no licensed operators of DBS service in Denmark.
3.
Number for public local terrestrial radio in Sweden represents community radio stations. Additionally, cable television service and DBS services are liberalised.
Source: OECD, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998.
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.9. Status of major terrestrial television broadcasting companies in the OECD area
124
Television broadcasting service provider
Status
Channels
Network provider
Australia
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)
Seven Network
Nine Network
Ten Network
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
1
1
1
1
1
National Transmission Agency
National Transmission Agency
Own
Own
Own
Austria
ORF
Public
2
Own
Belgium
RTBF
BRTN/VRT
TVI SA
Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij n.v.
Public
Public
Private
Private
2
2
2
2
Own
Canada
CBC/SRC
CTV Television Network
Réseau de TVA
Public
Private
Private
2
1
1
Own
Own
Own
Czech Republic
Czech Television
CET 21
FTV Premiéra
Public
Private
Private
2
1
1
Ceské radiokomunikace, a.s.
Ceské radiokomunikace, a.s.
Ceské radiokomunikace, a.s.
Denmark
Danmarks Radio
TV 2
Public
Public
1
1
Tele Danmark A/S
Tele Danmark A/S
Finland
Yleisradio Oy (YLE)
MTV Oy
Oy Ruutunelonen Ab
Public
Private
Private
3
1
1
Own
YLE
YLE
France
France 2
France 3
La Cinquieme
La Sept/Arte
TF1
M6
Canal +
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TDF
TDF
TDF
TDF
TDF
TDF
TDF
Germany
ARD
Public
1
ZDF
RTL
SAT 1
Public
Private
Private
1
1
1
Additional infrastructure from Deutsche
Telekom
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche Telekom
Greece
ERT
Mega Channel
Antenna 1
Star Channel
Sky TV
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
3
1
1
1
1
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Hungary
Magyar Televizio
Magyar RTL-Televizio
Magyar RTL TV
Public
Private
Private
1
1
1
Antenna Hungaria
Antenna Hungaria
Antenna Hungaria
Ireland
RTE
TV3
Public
Private
3
Own
RTE
Iceland
Rikisutvarp Sjonvarp
Public
1
Italy
RAI spa
Rti spa
Internazionale spa
Beta televisione spa
Rete A srl
TBS srl
Sit teleservice srl
Prima TV spa
Europa TV spa
Vallau italiana promomarket srl
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
OECD 1999
erratum.fm Page 111 Thursday, March 25, 1999 12:12 PM
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.9. Status of major terrestrial television broadcasting companies in the OECD area (cont.)
Television broadcasting service provider
Status
Japan
The Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK)
The University of the Air Foundation
Tokyo Broadcasting System, Inc. (TBS)
Nippon Television Network Corporation (NTV)
Fuji Television Network, Inc. (CX)
TV Asahi
Television Tokyo Channel 12 Ltd. (TX)
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Korea
KBS
MBC
EBS
SBS
KBC
TBC
TJB
PSB
ITV
UBC
JTV
CJB
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Own
Own
KBS, Korea Telecom
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Own
Luxembourg
CLT SA
Private
1
Mexico
Televisa
TV Azteca
Private
Private
3
2
Own
Own
Netherlands
NOS
Public
3
NOZEMA
New Zealand
Television New Zealand
Global Television
Prime Television
Public
Private
Private
2
2
1
Own
n.a.
n.a.
Norway
The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. (NRK) Public
TV2 Ltd.
Private
2
1
Norkring Ltd.
Norkring Ltd.
Poland
Telewizja Polska SA
Public
2
Portugal
RTP
SIC
TVI
Public
Private
Private
2
1
1
Portugal Telecom
Portugal Telecom
Own
Spain
Televisión Española
Gestevision Telecinco
Antena 3 TV
Canal+ España
Public
Private
Private
Private
3
1
1
1
Own
Retevision
Retevision
Retevision
Sweden
Sveriges Television AB
TV 4 AB
Public
Private
2
1
Teracom AB
Teracom AB
Switzerland
SSR
Public
4
Swisscom
Turkey
TRT
ATV
Kanal D
NTV
Inter Star
Show
TGRT
Cine 5
Kanal 6
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
Turk
United Kingdom
BBC
Channel 4
ITV
Channel 5
Public
Public
Private
Private
2
1
1
1
Castle
Castle
Castle
Castle
United States
PBS
ABC
CBS
NBC
Fox TV
Public
Private
Private
Private
Private
Source:
OECD, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998, Annual Reports.
OECD 1999
Channels
Network provider
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Telekom
Transmission
Transmission
Transmission
Transmission
Services
Services
Services
Services
124 bis
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.10. Number of television channels viewable in the OECD area
Terrestrial television1
Direct broadcast satellite
Cable television
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Public
Private
Analogue
Digital
1997
1997
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
4
3-4
3
1
1
3
3
2
4
0
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
5
2
3
0
4
2
2
0
2
3
2-3
10
8
0
0
9
5
1
1
8
0
6
2
0
2
3
1
0
16
3
14
35
..
50
32
..
25
..
..
..
..
..
14
..
30
27
..
..
24
10
40
..
30
0
50
..
50
82
30
35
..
55.4
32
..
30
..
..
..
..
..
16
..
31
28
..
..
27
..
40
..
35
0
50
..
50
88
30
36
30
..
32
18
40
15-30
36
..
17
..
16
14
..
29
..
..
28
22
40
..
44
0
50
51
50
90
8
21
..
..
0
..
6
..
..
..
..
..
28
..
16
..
..
..
4
..
100-200
..
..
12
50
..
100-200
101
14
23
..
..
0
..
11
..
..
..
..
..
28
..
17
..
..
..
4
..
100-200
..
..
13
50
..
100-200
150
17
25
..
..
1
..
12
..
50
..
2
..
28
..
12
..
..
..
1
0
100-200
..
..
3
50
..
100-200
170
1995
Service
..
Service
..
0
Service
..
..
..
Service
..
Service
Service
2
..
0
..
Service
0
Service
0
Service
Service
0
..
Service
Service
0
1996
1997
not available
..
..
not available
..
..
0
3
not available
..
16
..
119
..
50
not available
..
7
not available
not available
20
59
99
193
2
4
..
..
not available
9
12
not available
0
40
not available
not available
0
93
..
..
not available
not available
0
140
1.
National or regional
2.
Data is a weighted average.
Source: OECD, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998, Cable and Satellite Europe.
125
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.11. Penetration rate of households with television sets and television sets per household in OECD countries
Penetration rate of households
with television sets
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
New Zealand
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
Average number of television sets
per household
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
99.00
95.84
83.17
99.11
94.59
..
96.98
93.60
..
98.51
..
..
96.72
98.97
..
..
..
66.06
88.84
97.56
..
..
71.68
99.40
..
..
..
97.25
99.00
96.23
82.90
99.06
94.59
88.08
97.01
93.99
..
98.28
95.30
..
98.10
99.01
..
..
..
..
88.90
97.56
..
..
72.56
99.30
..
..
..
97.11
..
96.10
..
99.15
94.59
..
96.00
93.13
98.65
99.17
..
..
98.02
99.01
..
..
94.77
..
90.54
97.56
91.67
..
72.59
99.50
84.92
87.53
96.00
97.52
1.86
1.30
1.15
1.84
1.14
..
1.16
..
1.08
2.15
..
..
1.22
1.22
..
1.12
..
1.03
1.16
0.94
..
..
0.79
1.63
..
1.13
..
1.49
1.77
1.29
1.24
1.84
1.19
1.22
1.34
..
1.08
2.23
1.14
..
1.43
1.34
..
1.11
..
..
1.25
0.96
..
..
0.87
1.69
..
1.22
..
1.53
..
1.28
1
1.85
1.24
1.18
1.38
1.51
1.25
2.25
..
..
..
1.34
2.02
1.13
1.69
..
1.27
..
..
1.24
0.88
1.68
1.19
1.33
1.49
1.54
OECD, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998.
126
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.12. Average household television viewing time per day (in hours)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
1995
1996
1997
3.13
2.2
..
3.31
..
..
2.2
5.1
3.00
3.67
..
..
3.13
..
..
2.73
..
..
..
..
2.04
..
2.48
3.41
2
..
..
..
..
3.14
2.21
..
3.26
..
2.35
2.29
5.4
3.10
3.97
..
..
3.14
..
..
3.07
..
..
..
..
1.57
..
2.49
3.49
2
..
..
..
..
..
2.22
..
3.24
..
..
2.29
5
3.5
4.15
3.41
..
3.04
3.56
..
..
..
..
..
..
1.59
..
2.45
3.51
2
..
..
3.26
..
OECD.
Table 6.13. Number of cable television subscribers in OECD countries
Number of subscribers
1995
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
3
7
1
1
15
1
865
628
791
511
190
817
885
800
5
550
498
3 637
193
131
5 625
1
667
1 217
58
401
2 400
2 325
401
1 326
61 800
114 726
1996
..
800
961
109
000
000
100
000
000
000
000
..
000
..
000
000
000
..
000
500
186
000
000
346
000
000
238
842
000
082
OECD, ITU, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998.
OECD 1999
3
7
1
2
16
1
215
897
657
866
574
240
845
108
670
8
727
514
5 001
476
133
1 230
5 715
3
664
1 414
171
438
2 400
2 418
483
1 872
63 654
122 397
1997
000
029
648
840
000
000
100
000
000
000
000
..
000
..
000
000
000
000
000
000
852
000
000
629
000
000
144
962
000
204
3
7
1
2
18
1
385
931
686
917
598
260
875
280
700
13
924
544
46
1
5
3
2
2
2
65
125
825
136
450
918
5
690
097
383
462
400
503
521
373
564
489
000
499
001
607
000
545
142
000
000
000
000
..
000
272
..
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
339
000
254
429
548
000
636
CAGR
1995-97 (%)
Penetration rate
en 1997 (%)
..
3.72
0.78
0.81
8.18
2.92
3.49
9.98
8.79
61.25
11.41
..
4.52
..
..
106.75
1.89
..
2.57
82.57
1.70
59.52
156.97
7.33
0.00
3.76
14.00
33.75
3.00
4.59
3.12
29.76
88.74
68.37
16.16
49.47
37.62
9.62
50.54
0.60
44.63
..
46.90
0.22
11.32
5.92
88.89
6.34
93.14
0.26
57.50
24.05
9.16
3.90
60.51
87.53
4.31
9.69
64.85
34.75
127
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.14. Number of Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) subscribers in OECD countries
Number of DBS subscribers
1995
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
New Zealand
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
32
368
207
157
8
516
65
329
9 129
10
3
150
270
1 779
162
738
556
180
3 698
5 852
24 209
..
..
000
..
000
000
000
..
..
000
000
..
000
000
000
000
000
..
000
000
..
000
000
000
000
000
..
000
000
000
1996
9
1
3
7
27
165 850
..
34 000
..
394 000
252 000
190 000
..
..
10 000
739 000
..
70 000
428 000
512 000
20 000
4 000
..
250 000
280 000
..
820 000
178 000
900 000
708 000
222 000
..
995 000
618 000
789 850
1997
265
550
37
500
442
297
241
1 201
13 600
13
812
5
75
535
10 421
4
2
1
4
9
47
280
309
070
196
130
877
268
350
305
185
968
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
500
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
..
000
..
..
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
500
CAGR
1995-97
(%)
Penetration
rate
for 1997 (%)
..
..
7.53
..
9.59
19.78
23.90
..
..
27.48
25.44
..
7.42
27.52
6.84
..
15.47
..
..
..
..
7.87
9.99
23.74
25.59
22.02
..
7.90
25.28
40.76
..
17.57
0.89
4.32
11.95
11.66
10.36
5.07
36.76
0.60
..
5.26
6.47
2.59
..
..
2.61
..
..
14.53
25.75
16.07
4.69
9.53
22.11
9.37
2.89
17.58
9.08
10.32
Number of digital DBS subscribers
1995
..
..
..
..
..
..
2
..
..
..
..
0
0
..
..
..
1996
1997
Service not available
..
8
Service not available
..
..
Service not available
..
2
..
101
..
55
Service not available
Service not available
Service not available
Service not available
20 000
200
236 000
631
..
..
Service not available
40 000
140
Service not available
0
Service not available
Service not available
..
355
..
Service not available
Service not available
Service not available
..
..
1 353
000
..
..
000
500
000
000
000
..
..
000
..
645
..
..
145
OECD, ITU, European Audiovisual Observatory 1998, Observation Mondial des Systems de Communication (1997), Cable and Satellite Europe.
Table 6.15. Number of subscribers to major satellite television channel packages
Number of subscribers
Launch
BSkyB
DirecTV/USSB
PrimeStar
EchoStar
CANALSATELLITE
SkyPerfecTV
Viasat
TPS
CANAL SATELITE
CTV
D+
Première/DF1
United Kingdom
United States
United States
United States
France
Japan
Scandinavia1
France
Spain
Scandinavia1
Italy
Germany
1990
1994
1994
1996
1992
1996
1996
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
Transmission
Analogue/Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Analogue/Digital
Digital
Analogue
Digital
Analogue/Digital
Analogue
Digital
Digital
1994
1995
1996
1997
3 477
..
..
..
215.7
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
4 163
1 225.9
954
..
305.9
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
5 500
2 341.5
1 678.6
355.8
446.1
..
..
100
99
..
..
50
6 372
3 081.2
1 912.6
961.4
776.5
630
549
350
260
220
179.7
100
1.
Does not include Iceland.
Source: European Audiovisual Observatory 1998, Annual Reports (1997), DBS Digest, MPT White Paper (1998).
128
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.16. Definition of ‘‘broadcasting’’ in OECD countries
Definition of ‘‘broadcasting’’
Australia
Service that delivers television and radio programmes to people having equipment appropriate for receiving that
service, whether the delivery uses the radio frequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means
or a combination of those means.
Austria
Provision and distribution to the public of performances of all kinds – in words, sound and picture – using
electrical waves without interconnecting wires, or by means of a conductor as well as by operation of technical
equipment fulfilling this function.
Belgium1
A radio communications service whose programmes are intended to be received directly by the public in general
or by a portion thereof. This service may comprise radio, television or other sorts of programmes.
Canada
Any transmission of programmes, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means
of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus.
Czech Republic
Diffusion of programmes or picture and sound information by transmitters, cable, satellites and other means
intended to be received by the public.
Denmark
Not defined.
Finland
Initial transmission or provision by wire or over the air, including that by satellite, in unencoded or encoded
form of television or sound radio programmes intended for reception by the public.2
France
Audio-visual communication is defined as the transmission of text, sounds, images of all types transmitted
by telecommunications and not having a characteristic of private correspondence.
Germany
Production and dissemination of performances of all kinds in word, sound and picture using electromagnetic
oscillations without a connecting line or along or by means of a line. The concept includes performances which
are disseminated in encrypted form or for which a certain charge is made for reception.
Greece
Hungary
Regular provision of television and radio broadcasts bearing permanent titles/names, during the broadcasting
time published in advance, through the channels of any broadcast dissemination system as identified and made
public, for anyone who operates a suitable operating apparatus.
Iceland
Ireland
The transmission, relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy of communications, sounds, signs, visual
images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether they are actually received or not.
Italy
Initial transmission of radio-television programmes to the public by wire or over-the-air including that
by satellite, in clear and encoded form.
Japan
Transmission of radio communications intended to be received directly by the general public.
Korea
Transmission of the broadcast programmes which are planned, produced and scheduled to the public by means
of telecommunication facilities via cable, satellite as well as terrestrial radio wave.3
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
Everything connected with the preparation, compilation, execution and transmission of public programmes
which are intended for broadcast.
New Zealand
Any transmission of programmes, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means
of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus.
Norway
Transmission of speech, music, images and the like by radio waves or cable, intended to be received directly
by the general public within geographically delimited areas.
Poland
Portugal
Television broadcasting: transmission, encoded or not, of non permanent images and sounds by means
of electromagnetic waves or any other appropriate medium, whether through the air or through cables, that
is intended to be received by the public. Radio broadcasting: unilateral transmission of sound communications,
by means of radio electric waves or any other suitable medium, intended to be received by the general public.
Spain
Primary broadcasting, via cable, terrestrial means or satellite of encrypted or unencrypted television programmes
for the general public.
Sweden
Transmission of sound radio and television programmes directed to the public and intended for reception using
technical aids.
OECD 1999
129
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.16. Definition of ‘‘broadcasting’’ in OECD countries (cont.)
Definition of ‘‘broadcasting’’
Switzerland
Transmission by means of telecommunications technology of programmes for the general public.
Turkey
Service that delivers television and radio programmes to be received by the public, whether the delivery uses
the radio frequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means or a combination of those
means.
United Kingdom
In general, a service consisting in broadcasting of television or radio programmes for general reception in,
or an area in, the United Kingdom.
United States
1.
The Belgian response from Belgium represents the French community.
2.
As from 1 January 1999 due to the new Act on Television and Radio Operations.
3.
This definition is a revised term indicated in the draft of the new Broadcasting Act.
Source: OECD.
130
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.17. ‘‘Must carry’’ rules in the OECD area
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Australia
No
Austria
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster. Additionally, they may
be forced by the regulatory authority on request of a programme supplier to carry a specific
programme under special conditions.
Belgium1
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster; private television
stations; pay TV stations; local and community television stations; international broadcasters
designated by the government and in which the public broadcaster is a participant.
Canada
Yes
Cable television operators and wireless system operators must carry programmes of the public
broadcaster, local and regional stations, and educational programmes. Satellite operators must also
carry programmes of the public broadcaster and of at least one affiliate of each national television
network licenced on a national basis. Additionally, all operators are required to carry all Canadian
specialty and pay television services appropriate for their markets.
Czech Republic
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster and other broadcasters
whose services are receivable by standard equipment in the cable operator’s service area.
Denmark
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster. Additionally, if a cable
system has more than eight channels, the operator must provide one channel for local television.
Finland
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster and other national
broadcasters intended to be received in the territory of the cable operator.
France
Yes
The law of 1986 permits the regulatory authority to require cable television operators to simulcast
terrestrial broadcasting which are normally received in the area.
Germany
2
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster.
Ireland
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the national broadcasters.
Italy
Yes
Cable television and satellite operators must provide certain capacity by way of licence.
Japan
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of all terrestrial television broadcasters
of the area intact and simultaneously, subject to the regulatory authority’s designation,
Korea
Yes
Cable television operators must simultaneously carry programmes of television broadcasters which
the Presidential Orders designate.
Luxembourg
No
Mexico
No
Netherlands
Yes
New Zealand
No
Norway
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster, other national
broadcasters and local public television stations.
Portugal
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of the public broadcaster. Additionally, they must
reserve three channels of their network for the distribution of terrestrial regional or local television
channels, and video or radio signals from non-profit entities for research, educational and cultural
purposes.
Spain
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of national broadcasters both public and private;
autonomous community television stations; and local television stations. Additionally, cable
television and satellite operators are required to reserve 40 per cent of their network for
independent productions.
Sweden
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of national broadcasters, both public and private,
and one local television service designated by the regulatory authority.
Iceland
Cable television operators must carry programmes of national, regional and local broadcasters
in the region where the cable network is located; and Dutch-language programmes of the Belgian
public broadcasters.
Poland
OECD 1999
131
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.17. ‘‘Must carry’’ rules in the OECD area (cont.)
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Switzerland
Yes
Cable television operators must carry programmes of terrestrial television services, both public and
private.3
Turkey
No
United Kingdom
Yes
Cable television operators who hold licences issued before the Broadcasting Act 1990 must carry
programmes of all national broadcasting services. Subject to the Broadcasting Act 1996, digital
cable television operators are required to carry programmes of all national and regional terrestrial
television services.
United States
1.
2.
3.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
Must-carry rules are to be introduced.
Additionally, there is an arbitration procedure for broadcasters unable to negotiate programme transmission with a cable television operator or terrestrial
relay transmitter operator.
Source: OECD.
132
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.18. Major domestic and local content requirements in the OECD area
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Direct broadcast satellite
Australia
At least 55 per cent of the annual
broadcasting time between 6:00 hrs
and midnight must be Australian
programmes.
Licencees whose service is devoted
– Same requirements
mainly to drama programmes
as their terrestrial counterparts
are required to spend at least 10 per
for analogue services.
cent of annual programme
– Same requirements as cable
expenditure on new Australian
television services for digital
drama programmes.
services.
Austria
No
Belgium1
– Public broadcasters must broadcast an average of 7 hours per day of own or co-produced programmes
over the year. Additionally, at least 33 per cent of programmes must be by French-speaking professionals.
– Private broadcasters must broadcast at least 20 per cent of own programmes.
– Pay television broadcasters must broadcast at least 5 per cent of own programmes.
– Local and community broadcasters must produce at least 33 per cent of own programmes.
Canada
– At least 60 per cent of CBC’s
entire broadcasting time
must be Canadian programmes.
– For private broadcasters, at least
60 per cent of the entire
broadcasting time, and at least
50 per cent of their broadcasting
time between 18:00 hrs
and midnight must be Canadian
programmes.
Czech Republic
No
Denmark
Minimum of one hour per day on programmes based on the local
community.
No service
Finland
No
25 per cent of programmes
must be French and some
programmes must be regional.2
n.a.
France
– For films and audiovisual
programmes, at least 60 per cent
must be European programmes
and at least 40 per cent
must be original French-language
programmes.
– Terrestrial broadcasters must
invest at least 15 per cent
of their revenue in original
French-language programmes,
3 per cent in European
programmes, and 2.5 per cent
in original French-language films.
The same requirements are imposed
upon cable television operators
except for the first three years
of service. No obligations are
imposed regarding investment.
Germany
Only as specified in the Directive of the European Commission.3
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
At least 15 per cent of the annual
broadcasting time of national
and regional broadcasters
must be devoted to Hungarian
programmes.4
Cable television and satellite operators must ensure that the majority
of the broadcasting services are devoted to the distribution of Canadian
programming services.
n.a.
n.a.
Ireland
No
Italy
– National broadcasters must
No
broadcast news programmes
every day.
– Regional broadcasters must
reserve 20 per cent of broadcasting
time per week for regional
information.
No
Iceland
OECD 1999
133
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.18. Major domestic and local content requirements in the OECD area (cont.)
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Direct broadcast satellite
At least 70 per cent of broadcasting
time of each cable channel
must be devoted to Korean
programmes.
No
n.a.
n.a.
Japan
No
Korea5
At least 80 per cent of broadcasting
time must be devoted to Korean
programmes.
Luxembourg
No
Mexico
No
Netherlands
At least 50 per cent of the broadcasting time must be individual programmes which may be qualified as European
works. Additionally, at least 40 per cent of the broadcasting time must be individual programmes in Dutch
or Frisian.
New Zealand
No
Norway
n.a.
No
No
Poland
Portugal
At least 50 per cent of broadcasting
time of national broadcasters
must be devoted to Portuguese
programmes. Additionally, at least
10 per cent of broadcasting time
must be devoted to independently
produced European programmes
less than five years old.
Spain
Only as specified in the Directive of the European Commission.6
Sweden
A significant extent of broadcasting
time must be devoted to Swedish
programmes.
Switzerland
Specific obligations may be
negotiated on a case-by-case basis
in the licences granted
to broadcasters, taking into
consideration national, regional
and cultural identity.
– At least 50 per cent of the annual broadcasting time must be devoted
to European programmes.
– At least 10 per cent of the annual broadcasting time or at least
10 per cent of the programming budget must be devoted to European
programmes produced by independent producers.
Turkey
United Kingdom
– For Channel 3 and 5: At least
At least 10 per cent of the programming in specific categories
25 per cent of programming
must be independent programmes.
in specific categories
must be independent programmes.
– For Channel 3 regional: At least
65 per cent of the annual
broadcasting time
must be Channel 3 origin
programmes. Additionally, at least
80 per cent of regional
programming must be devoted
to programmes of regional origin.
United States
No
1.
2.
3.
134
The Belgian response represents the French community.
These requirements will be eliminated as of 1 January 1999.
Subject to the Agreement on Broadcasting between the Federal States, television companies are to reserve the majority of the total time available
for television programmes for European works in line with the European law.
4.
As of 1 January 1999, the ratio will be raised to 20 per cent.
5.
In the case of terrestrial television, news, current affairs, educational documentary and sports programmes are not included in this quota requirement. In
the case of cable television, the quota requirement for domestic programmes is 50 per cent for science and technology, educational and sports
programmes. Additionally, so far there has been no restriction on DBS service since there has been no service up to now.
6.
Council Directive No. 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989, as amended by Directive No. 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 June 1997.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.19. Regulatory treatment of ‘‘webcasting service’’ in OECD countries
Detail of regulatory treatment
Australia
n.a.
Austria
Whether such services are covered by regulation needs to be decided if challenged.
Belgium1
Current regulations do not cover the provision of audio or video services on switched networks such
as the Internet. Nonetheless, proposals are being formulated to make the necessary adjustments to current
regulations.
Canada
No industry-wide consensus on how to apply Broadcasting Act rules to such services at present.
Czech Republic
No specific legislation at present.
Denmark
Defined and treated as telecommunications services.
Finland
n.a.
France
Either as for broadcasting services if these services provide content to the public, or as for telecommunication
services if it consists of private correspondence.
Germany
Whether such services are defined as broadcasting, which requires a licence, or as a media service, which does
not require a licence, basically depends on the content of the service.
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
n.a.
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
No specific legislation at present.
Japan
n.a.
Korea
The service is not yet clearly defined, but is considered to be a pseudo broadcasting service delivered
over the telecommunication network and treated as a multimedia service that does not belong to the domain
of any conventional medium. Currently such service is barely regulated, but it will be in the future if it becomes
more widely available and affects a greater number of people.
Luxembourg
These services are considered as public communications and as such are subject to common law.
Mexico
Netherlands
Defined and treated as telecommunication services.
New Zealand
The service is not yet defined. It will be regarded as broadcasting if covered by the definition stipulated
in legislation.
Norway
The service is not yet defined.
Poland
Portugal
Spain
No specific legislation at present.
Sweden
‘‘Real-time’’(live) broadcasting over the Internet would probably be defined and treated as cable broadcasting.
On the other hand, providing audio or video files for downloading on a Web site would probably
not be considered as ‘‘broadcasting’’ under the present legislation.
Switzerland
At present, such services are not considered as broadcasting. Consumer attitudes to this type of service
and the mediocre quality offered by the Internet does not yet warrant considering it as a broadcasting medium.
Turkey
No.
United Kingdom
The ITC and the Radio Authority has neither sought nor found it necessary to interfere with such services
in practice.
United States
1.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
Source: OECD.
135
OECD 1999
Broadcasting administration and regulation in the OECD area
Regulation
Audiovisual policy
Carriage regulation
Frequency allocation
Content regulation
Australia
Department
of Communications,
the Information Economy
and the Arts
Australian Broadcasting
Authority (ABA)
ABA
ABA
Austria
Federal
Chancellery/Department
for the Media
Federal Ministry of Science
and Transport,
Regional Radio and Cable
Broadcasting Authority
Federal Ministry of Science
and Transport
Commission
for the Observance
of the Broadcasting Act,
Regional Radio Act, Cable
and Satellite Broadcasting Act
Government of the French
Community,
Conseil Supérieur
de l’audiovisuel (CSA)
Government of the French
Community,
Institut belge des services
postaux
et des télécommunications
(IBPT)
Government of the French
Community,
Conseil Supérieur
de l’audiovisuel (CSA)
Belgium
OECD 1999
Canada
Department of Canadian
Heritage
Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC)
Industry Canada
CRTC
Czech Republic
Council of the Czech Republic
for Radio and Television
Broadcasting
Czech Telecommunication
Office
Ministry of Transport
and Communications
Council of the Czech Republic
for Radio and Television
Broadcasting
Denmark
Ministry of Culture
Ministry of Culture,
Local Radio and Television
Board,
Satellite and Cable Board,
National Telecom Agency
National Telecom Agency
Ministry of Culture,
Local Radio and Television
Board,
Satellite and Cable Board
Finland
Ministry of Transport
and Communications
Ministry of Transport
and Communications
Telecommunications
Administration Centre
Council of State,
Ministry of Transport
and Communications
France
Ministry of Culture
Conseil Supérieur de
l’Audiovisuel (CSA)
CSA (coordinated with ART)
CSA
Germany
n.a.
Direktorenkonferenz der
Landesmedienanstalten
(DLM),
Regulatory Authority
for Telecommunications
and Posts (Reg TP)
Reg TP
DLM
Greece
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Others
National Transmission
Agency,
Australian Communications
Authority (ACA)
Communications Outlook 1999
136
Table 6.20.
OECD 1999
Table 6.20. Broadcasting administration and regulation in the OECD area (cont.)
Regulation
Audiovisual policy
Carriage regulation
Hungary
Frequency allocation
Content regulation
n.a.
Communications Authority,
Communications Authority,
Communications Authority,
National Radio and Television National Radio and Television National Radio and Television
Commission
Commission
Commission
Ireland
n.a.
The Office of the Director
of Telecommunications
Regulations (ODTR)
ODTR
Independant Radio
and Television Commission
(IRTC)
Italy
n.a.
Ministry of Communications,
National Regulatory
Authority
Ministry of Communications,
National Regulatory
Authority
Ministry of Communications,
National Regulatory
Authority
Japan
Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
Korea
Ministry of Culture
and Tourism
Ministry of Information
and Communication,
Ministry of Culture
and Tourism
Ministry of Information
and Communication
Ministry of Culture
and Tourism, The Korea
Broadcasting Commission
Others
Iceland
Luxembourg
Telecommunications Institute
of Luxembourg
Mexico
Secretaria de
Comunicaciones
y transportes, COFETEL
La Comisión Federal
de Telecomunicaciones
Secretaria de gobernación
Netherlands
n.a.
Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water
Management, OPTA
Ministry of Transport,
Public Works and Water
Management, OPTA
Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science,
Media Commission
New Zealand
Ministry of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce
Broadcasting Standards
Authority
Norway
Royal Norwegian Ministry
of Cultural Affairs,
Mass Media Authority,
Norwegian Posts
and Telecommunications
Authority
Royal Norwegian Ministry
of Cultural Affairs, Mass
Media Authority,
Norwegian Posts
and Telecommunications
Authority
Norwegian Posts
and Telecommunications
Authority
Royal Norwegian Ministry
of Cultural Affairs,
Mass Media Authority
Secretary of States
for the Mass Media (SECS),
Ministry of Culture, Institute
of Cinema, Audiovisual
and Multimedia (ICAM)
SECS, Institute for the Media
(ICS), Mass Media Authority
(AACS),
Institution
of Communications (ICP)
ICP
SECS, ICS, AACS
Poland
137
Broadcasting Services
Portugal
Regulation
Audiovisual policy
Carriage regulation
Frequency allocation
Content regulation
Spain
n.a.
Ministry for Development,
Secretariat-General
for Communications
Secretariat-General
for Communications
Secretariat-General
for Communications,
Autonomous Communities
Sweden
n.a.
Ministry of Culture,
The Radio and TV Authority
The National Post
and Telecom Agency
The Swedish Broadcasting
Commission
Switzerland
Federal Council
Federal Council,
Department
of the Environment,
Transport,
Energy and Communications
(DETEC),
Federal Office
for Communications
(OFCOM)
OFCOM
Federal Council, DETEC,
OFCOM
Turkey
Ministry of Culture,
Public TV and Radio
Broadcasting Organisation
General Directorate
of Communications
General Directorate
of Communications
Radio Television Upper Board
United Kingdom
Department of Culture,
Media and Sport (DCMS)
DCMS,
Independent Television
Commission (ITC)
Radio Authority
Independent Television
Commission (ITC)
United States
Federal Communications
Commission (FCC)
FCC
FCC
FCC
1.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
Source: OECD, KPMG.
Others
Telecommunications Market
Commission,
Prime Minister’s Office
Communications Outlook 1999
138
Table 6.20. Broadcasting administration and regulation in the OECD area (cont.)
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.21. Specific cross sector ownership restrictions in OECD countries
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Australia
No
Austria
Yes
– ORF1 is not allowed to invest in cable television operators.
Belgium
No2
– Cable operators are not allowed to provide terrestrial television services. Cable operators are not
allowed to own more than 24 per cent of the shares of a private television station or of a local
or community television station. Nor may they manage or control more than a one-third share
in the board of directors of such television stations.
– Terrestrial television companies are not allowed to provide cable television infrastructure
and services.
Canada
No3
Czech Republic
No
Denmark
No
Finland
No
France
Yes
Germany
No
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
Yes
– Terrestrial television companies licensed to provide services to an area with a population
of 4 million or more are not allowed to provide cable television infrastructures.
– Cable television operators licensed to provide cable television infrastructures covering an area
with a population of 6 million or more are not allowed to provide terrestrial television services.
– Cable television operators are not allowed to provide or invest in terrestrial television companies.
Iceland
Ireland
No
Italy
Yes
– Terrestrial television companies and cable television operators are not allowed to own more than
30 per cent of the integrated market.
Japan
Yes
– Terrestrial television companies may be permitted to establish cable television infrastructures
in special cases.
Korea
Yes4
– Terrestrial television companies are not allowed to invest in or provide cable television
infrastructures and services.
– Cable television operators are not allowed to invest in or provide terrestrial broadcasting services.
Luxembourg
No
Mexico
No
Netherlands
No
New Zealand
No
Norway
Yes
– Cable television operators in a licence area are not allowed to possess their own licence
to operate local television services or possess more than a 49 per cent holding in a local
television company, or possess a holding that represents more than 49 per cent of the votes in a
local television company.5
Poland
Portugal
No
Spain
Yes
Sweden
No
Switzerland
No
Turkey
No
OECD 1999
– Private terrestrial television companies are not allowed to provide cable television infrastructure.
– Private terrestrial television companies also providing cable television services are not allowed
to hold more than one licence.
– Private terrestrial television companies also providing telecommunications services are not
allowed to hold more than one licence.
139
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.21. Specific cross sector ownership restrictions in OECD countries (cont.)
Restricted
Detail of restriction
United Kingdom
Yes
– The BBC is specifically prevented from holding a licence to provide cable television services.
– The broadcasting regulator is required to fully ensure that commercial television licensees
do not obtain licences for cable television services.
– Telecommunications operators having a turnover exceeding £2 billion per annum are prevented
from holding or controlling licences to operate national and regional commercial television
services, domestic satellite services and cable television services. Additionally, holders of such
licences may not control a telecommunications operator with a turnover exceeding £2 billion
per annum.
United States
No6
1.
2.
3.
ORF is a public organisation providing national terrestrial television broadcasting. There is no private company.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
CRTC exams the issue on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, a telecommunication carrier wishing to provide cable television service must hold
a structurally separate entity.
4.
The draft legislation proposes that terrestrial broadcasters, cable television operators and satellite broadcasters are not allowed to own each other.
5.
These restrictions are scheduled to be reviewed.
6.
The 1996 Act eliminates the broadcast network-cable cross ownership rule and the statutory broadcast station-cable system cross ownership restriction
(FCC rules restricting cross ownership of broadcast station-cable systems have been retained).
Source: OECD, KPMG.
140
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.22. Ownership restrictions on television services in OECD countries1
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Direct broadcast satellite
Australia
A single entity is not allowed
None
to exercise control of commercial
terrestrial television broadcasting
licences whose combined licence
area population exceeds 75 per cent
of the whole population of Australia.
None
Austria
None2
None
Belgium3
A single entity holding more than
24 per cent of the shares
in a private television station either
directly or indirectly, is not allowed
to own more than 24 per cent
of the shares in another private
television station of the French
community either directly
or indirectly.
Pay television stations of the French community must reserve at least 26 per cent of their share capital
for the RTBF, either alone or in combination with one of its majority-owned subsidiaries, or their statutes must
guarantee RTBF veto power.
Canada
A single entity is not allowed to own None
more than one television station
offering service with the same
official language in the same market.
None
Czech Republic
None
None
None
Denmark
For local television, the same
individual may not be a member
of the board of more than one local
station.
None
None
Finland
None
None
None
France
– A physical or moral person acting
alone or jointly is not allowed
to hold, directly or indirectly, more
than 49 per cent of the capital
or voting rights of a national
broadcasting station (an entity
serving more than 6 million
inhabitants).
– A physical or moral person
holding, directly or indirectly,
more than 15 per cent
of the capital or voting rights in a
national broadcasting station
is not allowed to hold, directly
or indirectly, more than 15 per
cent of another national
broadcasting station. Additionally,
no person is allowed to hold more
than 5 per cent of the capital
or voting rights of a third national
broadcasting station.
Germany
A single entity is not allowed to control more than 30 per cent of the total audience time share of the total
television market including terrestrial, cable and satellite television.
Greece
– A single entity is not allowed
to own shares or voting rights
in more than one broadcasting
company.
– A single entity is not allowed
to own more than 25 per cent
of the shares of a broadcasting
company.
OECD 1999
None
– A physical or moral person is not
allowed to hold, directly
or indirectly, more than 50 per
cent of the capital or voting rights
of a satellite broadcasting station
operating exclusively via
communication satellite.
– A person holding more than
one-third of the capital or voting
rights of a satellite broadcasting
station is not allowed to hold,
directly or indirectly, more than
one-third of the capital of another
satellite broadcasting station.
Additionally, no person is allowed
to hold more than 5 per cent
of voting rights of a third satellite
broadcasting station.
n.a.
n.a.
141
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.22. Ownership restrictions on television services in OECD countries1 (cont.)
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Direct broadcast satellite
A single entity holding a licence
for national television broadcasting
or holding a controlling share
in such an entity is not allowed
to acquire a controlling share
in another television company.
None
None
Ireland4
None
None
None
Italy
A single entity is not allowed
to control more than 20 per cent
of national television programmes.
A single entity is not allowed
to control more than 30 per cent
of sector resources.
A single entity is not allowed
to control more than 30 per cent
of sector resources.
Japan
A single entity is not allowed
to own or control more than
one broadcasting station.
None
A single entity is not allowed to own
or control more than
one broadcasting station.
Korea
– A single entity is not allowed
to own more than 30 per cent
of the shares in a broadcasting
company.
– Major industrial groups are not
allowed to acquire shares of a
broadcasting company.
– Cable operators, programme
None
providers and network operators
are not allowed to own each
other.5
– MSO is not allowed.
– A single entity is not allowed
to own more than 30 per cent of a
news channel.
Luxembourg
– A single entity is not allowed
to own shares in more than
one broadcasting company.
– A single entity is not allowed
to own more than 25 per cent
of the shares or votes
of a broadcasting company.
Hungary
Iceland
Mexico
Netherlands
None
None
None
New Zealand
None
None
None
Norway6
– A single entity is not allowed
to hold more than one-third
of the total local broadcasting
market.
– A single entity is not allowed
to own a share in more than
one licence in one and the same
licence area for local television.
None
None
Poland
Portugal
Subject to the Broadcasting Act, the practices of ownership concentration conditioned to a previous notification
to the Competition Council e.g. making or strengthening of a market share superior to 30 per cent of the national
television market, or when the concentration of ownership implies a global annual turnover superior to 30 billion
escudos, shall be reported to the High Authority for the Mass Media which makes a binding judgement. However,
this judgement can be negative only in cases where freedom of expression and opinion are at stake.
Spain
– A single entity is not allowed
to hold more than one licence.
– A single entity is not allowed
direct or indirect control of more
than 25 per cent of capital.
– A single entity is not allowed
to hold shares in more than one
licence.
Maximum number of subscribers
to a single entity is limited
to 1.5 million.
A single entity is not allowed direct
or indirect control of more than
25 per cent of capital.
Sweden
None
None
None
142
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.22. Ownership restrictions on television services in OECD countries1 (cont.)
Terrestrial television
Cable television
Direct broadcast satellite
Switzerland
Applicants are required to declare the names of the major shareholders to the licensing authority. The authority
checks the application to see whether it poses a threat to the diversity of opinion or supply.
Turkey
A single entity is not allowed to own more than 20 per cent of the shares in a broadcasting station.
United Kingdom
– For analogue television: A single entity is not allowed to hold or control licences for more than 15 per cent
of the total television audience.
– For digital television:
1. Utilising the points scheme, and depending on the total number of points allocated, the maximum permitted
number of points that a single entity is allowed to hold varies between 20 and 25 per cent of the total digital
programme services.
2. Holding of multiplex licences is restricted. No more than three licences may be held by any one person
or corporate body.
United States
– No single broadcasting company
is allowed to cover more than
35 per cent of the national
audience reach.
– A single entity is not allowed
to own more than one television
station in the same market.
None
None
1.
2.
3.
4.
In general, this table refers to commercial television services. Public television service is not included.
No private company providing terrestrial television broadcasting.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
However, the ITRC must consider the desireability of having undue control of broadcasting services in the award of individual contracts for private
broadcasting stations.
5.
The draft legislation proposes that a single entity is not allowed to own more than 30 per cent of a general or news channel. Additionally, it proposes that
industry groups are not allowed to own general or news channels.
6.
Current restrictions are scheduled to be reviewed.
Source: OECD, KPMG.
143
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.23. Cross media ownership restrictions in OECD countries
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Australia
Yes
A single entity is not allowed to control ownership among broadcasting television, radio
and newspapers in the same geographical market.
Austria
Yes
Owners of newspapers are not allowed to own more than 26 per cent of the shares or votes
in two broadcasting companies of different regions respectively, and 10 per cent in four
broadcasting companies.
Belgium1
No
Canada
No
Czech Republic
No2
Denmark
No
Finland
No
France
Yes
The law of 1986 limits the concentration of multimedia at the national and local or regional levels.
The law foresees four situations in each of these areas, and does not grant new permits
for television, cable or cable services in cases where the applicant already controls several means
of communication.
Germany
Yes
– A broadcasting television which has a dominant position in the media-related market
is not allowed to control more than slightly below 30 per cent of the total audience time
of the total television market.
– A broadcasting television active both in the television and the media-related market is not
allowed to have an influence on opinions which corresponds to a share of 30 per cent of total
audience time of the total television market.
– Specific limitations prevent newspapers which have a dominant position in the regional market
from owning shares in broadcasting companies.
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
n.a.
Iceland
Ireland
No
Italy
Yes
Broadcasting television, radio and newspaper groups cannot control more than 20 per cent of global
resources.
Japan
Yes
Except in specific cases, a single entity is not allowed to control ownership among broadcasting
television, radio and newspapers in the same geographical market.
Korea
Yes
A single entity is not allowed ownership of broadcasting television, radio and newspapers
in the same geographical market.
Luxembourg
No
Mexico
No
Netherlands
Yes
New Zealand
No
Norway
Yes3
– Public broadcasters are not allowed any cross-media ownership.
– Private broadcasters are not allowed to own a share of 25 per cent or more in the daily newspaper
market.
– In geographical areas with only one local broadcasting network, the sole newspaper group
in the area is not allowed to own a local broadcasting licence, or own more than a 49 per cent
share or votes in the local broadcaster, except in specific cases.
– In geographical areas with more than one local broadcasting network, the sole newspaper group
in the area is not allowed to own all the local television licences.
Poland
144
Portugal
No
Spain
No
Sweden
No4
Switzerland
No5
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.23. Cross media ownership restrictions in OECD countries (cont.)
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Turkey
Yes
Owners of newspapers are not allowed to own more than 20 per cent of the shares in a single
broadcasting station.
United Kingdom
Yes
– The holder of a national radio licence is not allowed to own a national or regional television
licence. Additionally, the holder of a regional television licence is not allowed to own a local radio
licence in the same geographical area.
– The holder of a newspaper group having more than 20 per cent of total national circulation is not
allowed to own a national or regional television/radio licence, or own more than a 20 per cent
share in such a licence. Additionally, applications by other newspaper groups are subject to a
public interest test.
United States
1.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
2.
Under consideration.
3.
The provision will be reviewed.
4.
Under consideration.
5.
However, the broadcasting licensing authority examines the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Source: OECD.
145
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.24. Foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasting services in OECD countries
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Australia
Yes
– Foreign control of commercial terrestrial television broadcasting licences is prohibited. Aggregate
foreign company interests in a licence must not exceed 20 per cent. Additionally, not more than
20 per cent of the directors may be foreign persons.
– A foreign person is restricted to a 20 per cent company interest in any subscription television
licence, and foreigners are restricted to 35 per cent in aggregate of subscription television
licences.
Austria
Yes
Licensee must be an Austrian citizen or company with headquarters in Austria (the EU and the EES
will be given the same treatment).
Belgium
No1
Canada
Yes
Czech Republic
No
Denmark
No
Finland
No
France
Yes
The law of 1986 limits foreign participation to 20 per cent of the capital for television or radio
broadcasting services in the French language. This restriction does not apply to EU citizens
nor to citizens of states that have signed bilateral agreements with France.
Germany
Yes
A broadcasting licence is issued only if the content of the programme basically reflects the variety
of opinions in Germany. Additionally, priority is given to national and European programmes when
selecting what is to be broadcast on cable. Due to such criteria, in practical terms, it is very difficult
for foreign broadcasters from outside the EU to obtain a licence or to be selected for cable
transmission. A similar problem occurs with the allocation of terrestrial broadcasting frequency.
Foreign investment in Canadian broadcasting companies (e.g. terrestrial television, cable
and satellite programming services, radio) is limited to 20 per cent of the voting interest
at the licence level and 33.3 per cent of the voting interest at the parent or holding company level.
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
n.a.
Iceland
Ireland
No
Italy
No2
Japan
Yes
– Broadcasting station licences and approval for programme supply shall not be granted
to the following:
1. A person who does not have Japanese nationality, a foreign government of its representative,
or a foreign juridical person or association.
2. A juridical person or association, whose activities are executed by an officer who is a person
or body referred to section 1.
3. A juridical person or association, one-fifth or more of whose voting rights is occupied
by the aggregate of voting rights held by a person or body referred to in section 1.
– Broadcasting station licences for facility supplying broadcasters or permission to install cable
television facilities (except those which are type 1 telecommunication carriers) shall
not be granted to the following:
1. A person who does not have Japanese nationality, a foreign government of its representative,
or a foreign juridical person or association.
2. A juridical person or association, which is represented by a person referred in section 1,
or one-third or more of whose officers are such persons.
3. A juridical person or association, one-third or more of whose voting rights is occupied
by the aggregate of voting rights held by a person or body referred to in section 1.
Korea
Yes
– Foreigners are barred from investing in terrestrial and satellite broadcasting.
– For cable television, foreigners are allowed to invest in programme providers up to a limit
of 15 per cent, but cannot invest in cable system operators.3
Luxembourg
No
Mexico
146
Netherlands
No
New Zealand
No
Norway
No
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.24.
Foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasting services in OECD countries (cont.)
Restricted
Detail of restriction
Poland
Portugal
No
Spain
Yes
Sweden
No
Switzerland
Yes
Broadcasting licences are granted only to foreign individuals domiciled in Switzerland
or foreign-controlled legal entities with their headquarters in Switzerland, provided that the foreign
state extends reciprocal facilities to Swiss nationals or Swiss-controlled entities. For legal entities,
it is specified that over half of the capital or equity shares should be owned by nationals domiciled
in, or legal entities with their headquarters in, the foreign state extending reciprocal facilities
to Swiss nationals or Swiss-controlled legal entities and that in either case they should hold
over half the votes at the annual general or shareholders’ meeting.
Turkey
Yes
A foreign entity is not allowed to hold more than 20 per cent of the shares. Additionally, a foreign
entity is not allowed to own shares in more than one broadcasting station.
United Kingdom
Yes
Only UK nationals and nationals of European Economic Area member states or corporate bodies
registered in such states, may hold licences to provide national and regional commercial television
services, domestic satellite services, national and local analogue radio services (no nationality
restrictions on licences to provide cable services, non-domestic satellite services, television/radio
digital multiplex services, digital television programme services and digital sound programme
services).
– For terrestrial television, there is a 25 per cent limit on foreign-held capital (EU capital
is not considered as foreign capital).
– For cable television, government authorisation is required for more than 25 per cent of foreign
capital holding (EU capital is not considered as foreign capital).
United States
1.
2.
3.
The Belgian response represents the French community.
Participation of non-European countries are allowed as long as they have similar regulations, with the exception of international treaties.
The new Broadcasting Act plans to allow foreign investment of up to 15 per cent in cable television system operators and programme providers, and 33 per
cent in cable network operators.
Source: OECD.
147
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.25. Scheduled plans for digital broadcasting in OECD countries
Australia
Type
of transmission
Expected number of licences
to be granted
Terrestrial TV
All current licencees will be granted
a licence.1
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
Expected number
of new channels
Expected date of service commencement
1 Jan 2001
Change to digital depends entirely
on broadcasters.
DBS2
Austria
n.a.
Belgium3
n.a.
Canada4
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Czech Republic
All current licencees are expected
to apply for a digital licence.
All current licencees are expected
to apply for a digital licence.
No new licence required.
Currently two licence holders.
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
To be decided.
To be decided.
Eight
Denmark
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Finland
France
Late 1999/2000
Late 1998
Now to through 2006
Already digital.
Six
20
To be decided.
Four
2 000 or later
2 000 or later
To be decided.
To be decided.
To be decided.
To be decided.
To be decided.
To be decided.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Three (at maximum)
Six national/Six regional
12
Six national/
Six regional
1 January 2000
1 January 1999
Cable TV
DBS
No licence required.
No licence required.
Terrestrial TV
To be decided.
2 000
Ongoing
Ongoing
To be decided.
To be decided.
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
Already digital (since 1996)
Already digital (since 1996)
DBS
Already digital (since April 1996)
Germany
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
n.a.
Several
Several
60
15
Iceland
Ireland
Terrestrial TV5
1
30
Late 2000
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV6
148
DBS
None
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.25. Scheduled plans for digital broadcasting in OECD countries (cont.)
Type
of transmission
Expected number of licences
to be granted
Expected number
of new channels
Undecided
Undecided
Licence granted according
to application.
Licence granted according
to application.
Undecided
Undecided
Different
from operators.
Four frequencies.
Undecided
Undecided
Already digital (since 1 July 1998)
13
To be decided.
To be decided.
13-52
To be decided.
To be decided.
2001
To be decided.
To be decided.
4
60-120
1999
Six national/
Six in each region
1999-2000/2002
One national/one in each region
12-20
12
400
2000
1999
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Four
Not specified
84
Up to 14
1 Jan 1999
1999
Cable TV
DBS
One licence per area.
Terrestrial TV
11
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
3-4/each major city
No licence required
No licence required
No licence required
No licence required
To be decided.
To be decided.
Italy
n.a.
Japan
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Korea
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS7
Expected date of service commencement
Already digital for services using
FSS band (since 1 June 1996).
For services using BSS band, from
2000.
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
Under
preparatory
stage.
New Zealand
n.a.
Norway
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Under consideration
Three national/under consideration
for regional
To be decided.
To be decided.
Poland
Portugal
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
8
DBS
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
OECD 1999
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
1998
Eight
(two multiplexes)
Late 1998
Already digital (since 1995)
1998/99
To be decided.
149
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.25. Scheduled plans for digital broadcasting in OECD countries (cont.)
Type
of transmission
Turkey
United Kingdom
Expected number of licences
to be granted
Terrestrial TV9
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV10
6
2
Expected number
of new channels
Expected date of service commencement
60
Near future
Near future
1998
24-30
8-9
Autumn 1998
Late 1999
DBS11
United States
Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial radio
Cable TV
DBS
All current licencees will be granted
a licence.
November 1998
Already digital (since 1997)
Already digital (since 1994)
1.
2.
No new commercial broadcasting licences will be issued in areas which already have three licences until after 2008, subject to review in 2005.
Subscription DBS services are digital. The other national and commercial DBS service providers are in the process of changing over to digital during
the course of 1998.
3. The Belgium response from Belgium represents the French community.
4. Canada’s strategy is for an orderly transition to digital services with parallel analogue services continuing until the market is sufficiently mature
in the transition – at some undetermined point in the future.
5. The information shown represents estimated figures. Legislation providing for the introduction of digital terrestrial television is currently being drafted.
6. Cable television operators have published plans from the introduction of digital television from 1999 onwards. The telecommunications regulator (ODTR)
is currently carrying out a consultation and review process with a view to determining arrangements for the licensing for digital television.
7. KBS and EBS, the public terrestrial broadcasters, began to air two channels of digital satellite broadcasting service from 1996 and 1997, respectively, but
their licences are not regular satellite broadcasters, but experimental broadcasters for practical use based upon Radio Wave Act. They and another two
satellite broadcasters, which will be multi-channel service providers, will be licenced after the enactment of the new Broadcasting Act. Two prospective
multi-channel broadcasters may be merged into one before the beginning of the service.
8. The plan is to grant a licence to a sole operator for all infrastructure networks.
9. Until 2000, test-purpose transmitters will be established for digital terrestrial television and radio service.
10. Cable television is not restricted to either analogue or digital technology.
11. Cable television is not restricted to either analogue or digital technology.
Source: OECD, FCC, Cable and Satellite Europe.
150
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 6.26. Major digital direct broadcasting satellite (DBS) services in the OECD area
Service name
Major owners
Launching
Transponder
Conditional access technology OS
Canada
StarChoice
ExpressVu
Apr. 1997
Sep. 1997
France
Canal Satellite Numerique Canal Plus, Pathé,
Générale des Eaux
Apr. 1996 Astra 1E
TPS
(Télévision Par Satellite)
Dec. 1996 Eutelsat II F1, Viaccess
Hot Bird 2
AB Sat
TF1, France TV,
CLT-Ufa, M6, Suez
Lyonnaise des Eaux
AB Productions
Germany
DF1
Premiere Digital
Kirch
Bertelsmann, Kirch
Jul. 1996
Feb. 1997
Italy
D+
Canal Plus RAI,
Mediaset, Telecom
Italia
1997
Japan
SkyperfecTV
News Corp.,
Softbank Corp.,
Sony Corp., Fuji TV,
Itochu Corp.
Hughes
Communications
May 1998 JCSAT 3
DirecTV Japan
MediaGuard
Number of channels
Media Highway Thomson, Philips,
Sony, Pace Pioneer
Basic: 27
Option: 20
Open TV
Sagem, Thomson
54
XCom
18
Dec. 1996 Eutelsat II F1, Viaccess
Astra 1E
140-160
Nov. 1997 Super Bird C
90
KBS
EBS
Public organisation
Public organisation
1996
1997
2
2
Spain
Canal Satellite Digital
Canal Plus Espana
Jan. 1997
Via Digital
RTVE, Telefonica,
Recoletos
Sep. 1997 Hispasat
Nagravision Digital
United Kingdom Sky Digital
BSkyB
Jun. 1998
Astra 2A
NDS
United States
DirecTV/USSB
Hughes
Communications
Jun. 1994
DBS 1, 2, 3
Primestar
DISH Network
major MSOs
EchoStar
Communications
Jul. 1994 GE-2
Mar. 1996
Astra 1E/1F
MediaGuard
Media Highway Thomson, Philips,
Sony, Pioneer, Pace
Nokia, Echostar Basic: 38
Option: 10
Basic: 10
Option: 20
Open TV
Pace, Matsushita,
Grundig, Amstrad
200 (planned)
Sony, Thomson,
Hughes Network,
Matsushita, Uniden
General Instruments
JVC, Philips
200
European Audiovisual Observatory 1998, MPT White Paper (1998), Dentsu Institute (1998), Newsbytes News Network, DBS Dish.com.
160
151
Broadcasting Services
Korea
Source:
Set-top-box supplier
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 6.27. Preparation for digital terrestrial television in selected OECD countries
152
Australia
The government announced its policy framework for the introduction of digital terrestrial television and radio
broadcasting on 24 March 1998. Bills to give effect to the government’s decision on digital terrestrial television
broadcasting were introduced in Parliament on 8 April 1998.
Canada
In October 1997, the Task Force on the Implementation of Digital Television issued a report recommending
17 specific initiatives targeting all key aspects of the transition to digital. According to the report, it is proposed
that digital terrestrial television should start in the largest markets by the end of 1999, followed by the next
largest markets. Broadcasting distribution undertakings should be fully digital-capable by the end of 2004.
All analogue transmission should cease at the end of 2007.
Finland
Digital terrestrial television services are planned to start by 1 January 2000, on two distribution networks
covering at 70 per cent of the population. A third network will be constructed after that. Operating licences
for digital terrestrial television will be granted in the beginning of 1999. In addition, government should take
a decision on switching off analogue transmission at the latest five years after the introduction of digital
terrestrial television or once digital transmission covers 50 per cent of the public.
France
The French government has announced a digital terrestrial test to be implemented in the second half of 1998
financed by the government. In addition, a new legal framework for digital terrestrial television is under
preparation. A study has been submitted to the government which proposes six networks for a coverage
of 80 per cent of the French population.
Germany
The Germany government has requested all network and programme providers to submit proposals
for the transition from analogue to digital terrestrial by mid-1998. Several tests are taking place in the Länder.
Ireland
Legislation on the introduction of digital terrestrial television is currently being drafted by the Department
of Arts and Heritage. The expected date for service commencement is late 2000.
Italy
Both the public broadcaster (RAI) and the private broadcaster (Mediaset) are planning to implement tests
during 1998. Additionally, according to a draft legislative proposal, analogue transmission is foreseen
to be terminated by 2010.
Japan
The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications is developing a plan to introduce digital terrestrial television.
An interim report submitted by the advisory committee proposes the clarification of implementation schedules
including the expected start of test broadcasting service in 2000 for the metropolitan area. The report also
proposes 2010 as the final target year for terminating analogue transmission. The final report is scheduled
to be submitted in October 1998.
Korea
In February 1997, the Korean government announced its basic plan for the introduction of terrestrial digital
television. The plan indicates implementing a trial starting in 2000, followed by service commencement in 2001.
Netherlands
The Ministry of Transport is developing a plan to introduce digital terrestrial television. The plan
is to be finalised in 1998.
Norway
A discussion paper focusing on digital television including digital terrestrial television is under consideration
by government. A test transmitter went into operation in May 1998.
Portugal
The Portuguese regulatory authorities (ICP, ICS) are currently promoting a public consultation campaign
on the introduction of digital terrestrial television. Additionally, Portugal Telecom is planning to implement
a digital terrestrial television network during 1998 for field trials and studies.
Spain
The arrival of digital terrestrial television in Spain is scheduled for 1999. The government’s plan to switch
the country’s analogue terrestrial transmission network to digital proposes to cease analogue transmission
by 2010. It also requires terrestrial commercial channels due to receive renewed analogue transmission licences
in 1999 to deploy digital simulcast transmission within 24 months of their renewal, and to transfer completely
to digital within ten years.
Sweden
In March 1996, the Swedish government announced its support for the development of terrestrial digital
television and presented a bill before Parliament. Digital terrestrial broadcasting operation will commence in
five areas in its initial stage, covering over half of the country. In each area, two frequencies will be made
available supporting a total of eight channels. The Swedish government has already received more than
50 applications for licences on the first two multiplexes to be offered. Service is requested to start
in Autumn 1998 or by 1 January 1999 at the latest.
United Kingdom
Following the legislation framework of the Broadcasting Act 1996, licences were granted to multiplex operators
by the ITC during 1997. Digital terrestrial television service commenced in September 1998 by the BBC.
OECD 1999
Broadcasting Services
Table 6.27.
United States
Source:
Preparation for digital terrestrial television in selected OECD countries (cont.)
The FCC has established an accelerated schedule for the introduction of digital terrestrial television. According
to this rule, most of the country will have access to digital terrestrial television by 1999 and the whole country
by 2002. The FCC requires that in the top ten markets, affiliates of the top four networks must provide digital
terrestrial television service by 1 May 1999. In markets 11 through 30, by 1 November 1999. Digital service
is planned to commence in the market from November 1998. The termination of analogue transmission
is currently scheduled for the year 2006.
OECD, Department of Canadian Heritage, Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland, MPT, ICP Portugal, FCC, Cable and Satellite Europe,
The UK Digital Television Group (DTG).
153
OECD 1999
Chapter 7
TELECOMMUNICATION PRICING
Main Trends in Pricing
In 1998 the major trends in telecommunication tariffs continue to be a shift towards “postalised rates” at
the national level, less distance-sensitive pricing and increasing use of discount plans. Postalisation is the term
given to the trend towards flatter rates for long-distance services. Much of the tariff rebalancing that PTOs
aimed to achieve prior to the introduction of competition in public switched telecommunication network
(PSTN) services, has been accomplished. That being said, contemporary prices may not be what some PTOs
envisaged when they first embarked on rebalancing in the 1980s. At that time, rebalancing was largely taken to
mean lowering long-distance tariffs while raising local rates (fixed access and local call charges). PTOs held that
the new price structures would better reflect the underlying costs of constructing and operating PSTNs.
At the same time, the new price structures were, of course, being put into place in preparation for pending
market liberalisation. Greatest competition was expected in long-distance markets while competition in local
markets was not expected in the foreseeable future. The first part of the prediction proved to be accurate, but
the second part less so for those countries which have pioneered local competition such as Finland and the
United Kingdom. Accordingly, while long-distance charges continue to fall, there have been some interesting
developments in the pricing of local services – the largest segment of the telecommunication market. These
include innovations in the pricing of local service where competition has emerged, including some reductions
in the price of local calls, and benefits for users in terms of new practices such as charging per second (Box 7.1,
Table 7.1).
Several factors have conspired to make local competition increasingly attractive for new entrants. Innovative regulatory frameworks, which have knocked down barriers to new entry, have undoubtedly played a part
in opening local markets. Regulatory directions to incumbent carriers to implement number portability is a key
example. The introduction of new technologies, such as fixed wireless or cable telephony, may not only bring
down the cost of building networks but also enable new business models and innovative pricing structures
(e.g. packaging cable television with PSTN pricing) to be employed by entrants. Moreover, elements of pricing
structures that worked for PTOs in monopoly markets, such as high connection charges to join a network, suddenly made no sense once customers had the choice of local access provider. Likewise, for new entrants, high
connection charges do not make sense because they need to entice customers away from incumbents.
At the same time, a major factor in progressively drawing new entrants into providing local service is the
potential to use this access to customers to attack, or defend, existing long-distance market shares. Telecommunication carriers that are not able to sell a full range of services, and rely on competitors to provide local
network access to customers, are at a strategic disadvantage to their rivals. Accordingly, in order to enter longdistance markets, new entrants are increasingly offering innovative pricing for local services. This has placed
the first competitive discipline on incumbents in local markets.
A further consideration for new market entrants is that rebalancing and postalisation have enlarged the
local market. By raising local access and local call prices, PTOs are also rebalancing their revenue base away
from market segments that are relatively easy for new entrants to access towards segments that are more difficult to access. Postalisation can also have a similar impact. When some PTOs postalise their rates, they raise
short-distance prices while bringing down the prices for longer distances. Often, the revenue impact is neutral
OECD 1999
155
Communications Outlook 1999
Box 7.1.
The structure of telecommunication charging practices
Telephone calls paid by users are predominantly charged in three ways (Table 7.1). The first method is where
users pay measured rates for calls. This means users pay for a call corresponding to a certain amount of time. This
“measured rate” charge can either correspond to the exact time of the call duration (or virtually the exact time
when calls are measured in seconds) or to the nearest unit. The length of a unit varies a great deal across the PTOs
employing this charging structure.
The second method by which calls are charged is at unmeasured rates. This is most common for local calls but
in some competitive markets new tariff options offer some unmeasured rates at off-peak times. These calls are not
“free” but are charged for through higher fixed charges such as a relatively higher line rental than is the case for
PTOs with measured rates. The third way in which a relatively small number of PTOs charge for calls is at flat rates
(sometimes called message rate service). This means a customer pays a certain amount per call and the charge
does not vary with the duration of the call.
The main trend since the last edition of the Communications Outlook is for a growing number of PTOs to charge
by the second rather than in fixed units of time. Since the beginning of 1996 the dominant PTOs in six countries
have shifted from charging by unit to charging by second. This brings to 14 the number of countries charging per
second; this number is expected to further increase over the next several years. This trend has largely been
brought about by competition. New market entrants, using measured rates, almost all charge by the second. If the
PTO does not respond, the new entrants can advertise their method of charging by the second as offering advantages for users over unit-based charging. This difference was most famously exploited in one country where a new
entrant showed two clocks ticking in time with two calls. While both calls finished at the same time, the clock measuring the unit-based call continued to tick. The main message here was that users of the incumbent’s unit-based
charging were paying for time they had not actually used. While incumbents have generally introduced this change
to combat long-distance competitors, it also benefits local users as the new charging practices are generally introduced on a uniform basis.
For PTOs with measured rates, charging by the second is welcomed by users because it is easier to understand, and some users resent that with a unit-based system they may be paying for time they do not use. Other
call charging practices which are sometimes less well known are call set-up charges or minimum charges per call.
Between 1996 and 1998, the dominant PTOs in three additional countries introduced one or both of these charges.
The new charges can, in one sense, be seen as part of a rebalancing process. This is because the majority of calls
made by users are local rather than long distance.
as it does not translate into higher or lower total costs for most users. In addition, some PTOs have introduced
discount schemes which effectively enlarge the local calling area for a higher fixed charge. However, depending
on the market structure and factors such as interconnection arrangements, it may be harder for new entrants to
compete in the enlarged “local market”. This trend is little noticed because the stimulation brought about by
competition ensures that the long-distance market continues to grow.
Despite the positive signs in countries that were first to liberalise markets and put in place regulatory
frameworks sympathetic to local infrastructure competition, two other factors have impacted on local access
pricing. The first of these is the introduction of pricing regulation, such as price caps, designed to emulate market discipline until new entrants had time to roll out competitive networks and services. The other factor is
undoubtedly the advent of the Internet and all that it entails for the future of local and long-distance pricing.
The Internet and telecommunication pricing
156
The emergence of the Internet is having a major impact on the direction of tariff rebalancing. To appreciate
the impact of the Internet, it is worth recalling that, at the beginning of 1995, virtually no PTO in the OECD area
offered dial-up Internet access. By 1998, all incumbent PTOs in the OECD area were offering dial-up Internet
access. However, the promise of new markets and the prize for the infrastructure provider best able to provide
the new pathways for electronic commerce, came into conflict with traditional approaches to rebalancing local
prices. In the new environment, PTOs increasingly recognised that, by continuing to raise local call prices, originally based on calls of short duration, they were dramatically raising the price for calls of longer duration that
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.1. Charging practices for residential users in the OECD area, 1998
Standard rate
charging structure
Local
Long distance
Off-peak rate
charging structure
Local
Long distance
Charging structure
Local
Long distance
Call set-up charge
or minimum call charge
Local
Long distance
Australia
Flat rate
Measured
Flat rate
Measured/
Fixed rate1
Per call
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Austria
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
No
No
Belgium
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Canada
Unmeasured
Measured
Unmeasured
Measured/
Fixed rate1
None
Seconds
No
No
Czech Republic Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Denmark
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Finland
Measured
Measured
Measured/
Flat rate
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
France
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
No
No
Germany
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Greece
Measured (digital lines) Flat rate (analogue lines)
Units
or per call
Units
No
No
Hungary
Measured
Measured
Measured/
Fixed rate
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Iceland
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
Yes
Ireland
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Italy
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
Yes
Japan
Measured
Measured
Measured/
Flat rate2
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Korea
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Luxembourg
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Mexico
Flat rate
Measured
after
first 100 calls
Flat rate
Measured
after
first 100 calls
Per call
Seconds
Yes
No
Netherlands
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
New Zealand
Unmeasured
Measured
Unmeasured
Measured/
Fixed rate1
Seconds
Seconds
No
No
Norway
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Poland
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
Portugal
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
Yes
Yes
Spain
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Sweden
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Seconds
Seconds
Yes
Yes
Switzerland
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
Yes
No
Turkey
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Units
Units
No
No
UK
Measured
Measured
Measured/
Unmeasured
Measured
Seconds/
Unmeasured
Seconds
Varies
Yes
US
Measured/Flat rate/Unmeasured/Fixed1
Seconds/
Unmeasured
Seconds
Varies
Varies
1.
While long-distance calling is usually measured, some tariff options (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) allow fixed rate prices for
long-distance calling or cap the price of long-distance calls at off-peak times. Calls under these options are either unmeasured or unmeasured beyond a
certain time at off-peak times. Hungary caps the price of local calls at 53 minutes between 22:00 hrs and 5:00 hrs.
2.
NTT has introduced a flat rate for late evening calls to certain specified numbers for which subscribers pay a higher rental.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
157
Communications Outlook 1999
are typical for Internet access. In France, rebalancing in the mid-1990s shortened the units of measurement
from six minutes to three minutes for a local call. While having no impact on the price of a three-minute local
call, this sharply increased the price of, for example, a 30 minute local call.
For countries with measured local calls – the majority – it quickly became evident that the major part of
the cost of dial-up Internet access was local calls. This led PTOs with measured local calls to respond in several
ways. First, a growing number of these PTOs have introduced discount plans aimed at reducing the cost of local
calls for Internet access. These discounts are usually related to time of day, call duration or special access numbers. For example, France Telecom offers discounts of 50 per cent for connections to the Internet between
20:00 hrs and 8:00 hrs. Belgacom offers a 50 per cent reduction for the time incurred beyond ten minutes on the
price of local calls. Turk Telekom, along with a number of other carriers, offers special numbers for Internet
access which are priced at a lower rate than local calls.
158
The second trend, often in association with a discount scheme, has enabled a number of PTOs to very aggressively price Internet access services in competition with Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Part of the reasoning is,
no doubt, to expand the local access market. More Internet access means greater local call revenue. In addition,
by winning the Internet access accounts of dial-up customers, PTOs restore themselves to their traditional role as
the “portal” for all electronic communication with all the related revenue opportunities that this has always generated. An additional benefit is that low Internet access prices reduce the pressure from users to reduce local call
prices. On the other hand, from the perspective of ISPs, without their own facilities to generate local call revenues,
the new pricing strategies are ominous. The alternatives for ISPs seem to be: to stay one step ahead of PTOs in
terms of what they can offer customers by way of additional or innovative services; to be taken over by or act as
resellers for PTOs; or to seek regulatory relief by endeavouring to show that incumbent operators are engaging in
predatory pricing.
While there is more flexibility for PTOs to raise the price of fixed lines, in line with earlier rebalancing strategies, the Internet is also having an impact on this market segment. The increased need for bandwidth generated by the Internet has been initially expressed in increasing demand for second residential access lines. Due
to the fact that many PTOs, as a matter of course, install additional copper wires for any residential connection,
much of the transmission investment to provide these services has already been made. Accordingly, some discount schemes target second-line installation and rentals. In 1997, Telefonica discounted subscriptions for second lines by 43 per cent. As a result, one in four access lines added in Spain during that year was a second
residential line. However, PTOs are engaged in a balancing act because they would also like to sell high-speed
access services, such as ISDN, and fear that they might undercut this market if they discount basic access lines.
Yet the evidence shows that if PTOs discount one market segment they can often stimulate growth in another.
For example, in the case of Spain, Telefonica recorded a five-fold increase in the number of connection hours,
from 10 million to 50 million hours, for its service connecting subscribers to Internet Service Providers in 1997.
Notwithstanding this, it is generally new market entrants, targeting residential and small business customers,
that offer the most generous discounts on second lines. For example, Atlantic Telecom, a new market entrant
using fixed wireless networks to connect customers in Scotland, offers customers two access lines for the price
of one.
The other new development in association with the emergence of the Internet is for PTOs to place billing
information on the World Wide Web. This means that users can monitor their bills on line. As an added feature,
some discount plans are available which enable users to pay their bills by credit card and not receive a written
statement from the PTOs. These customers only receive billing information from the Web site of a PTO. For
example, MCI has a scheme in which customers pay a flat rate of US$0.09 per minute for all long-distance calls
(with the exception of US$0.05 on Sundays) in return for only receiving an online billing statement. This represents a saving, for the user, of 10 per cent on MCI’s standard discount rate of US$0.10 per minute. In 1998, AT&T
offered a similar deal whereby, for the payment of US$4.95 per month, users could make US$0.10 per minute
calls anywhere in the United States and US$0.05 per minute calls on weekends. It is also increasingly common
for PTOs in the United States long-distance market to provide greater discounts to customers also subscribing
to their Internet access service. In October 1998, customers subscribing to Cable & Wireless (CWIX) Internet
access service for US$14.95 per month were eligible for long-distance rates of US$0.07 per minute across the
United States. On the other hand, consumers in the United States who do not wish to pay measured rates for
long-distance service at all times could opt for Sprint’s “Unlimited Calling”. This plan enabled users to
make unmeasured long-distance calls anywhere in the United States on weekends for the payment of
US$25 per month.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Rebalancing and postalisation
That part of the rebalancing process which has kept most closely to original expectations has been the continuing decline in the price of long-distance services. This is, undoubtedly, due to increased competition in
long-distance markets and falling equipment and operational costs. At the same time, there has been a definite
“postalisation” of rates. In other words, long-distance telephony is heading for a world where, like postal services, a service usually costs the same irrespective of the distance between any two points. Figure 7.1 shows
the difference between the cost of long-distance calls and a local call at three kilometres between 1990
and 1998. In 1990, the average price of a call at 490 kilometres was 20 times greater than a local call at three kilometres. In 1998, the margin was reduced to five times. In between these two points the figure clearly shows
more uniform pricing.
Postalised rates are not new to users in Luxembourg. Domestic calls within the OECD’s smallest Member
country have long been charged at the same rate over Luxembourg’s entire 2 600 square kilometres. It is in the
larger countries that the introduction of postalised rates is having a greater impact. In November 1997, Iceland
Telecom made Iceland’s entire 103 000 square kilometres into one local calling area. A decade earlier, the price
of a local call and that of a long-distance call varied by a factor of eight in Iceland, but tariff rebalancing has created a uniform call price across the whole country (Figure 7.2). To put the magnitude of this development into
perspective, Iceland’s local calling area is now larger than the land mass of eleven other OECD countries. Postalised rates are also being offered by new entrants as an incentive for customers to change their local access
provider. Atlantic Telecom offers its customers the opportunity to call anywhere in Scotland, and to certain
cities in the rest of the United Kingdom, for the price of a local call.
The postalisation of telecommunication rates is not always free of controversy. In Sweden, during 1997
Telia introduced a two-step rate structure. The number of pricing bands was reduced from three to two, meaning that all domestic call prices were either local or national. While the price of national calls was reduced by
23 per cent, dropping from US$0.085-US$0.078 to US$0.065, the new structure attracted criticism in terms of
Figure 7.1. OECD tariff rebalancing by distance
1990
1998
Index (3 km call charge = 100)
2 500
Index (3 km call change = 100)
2 500
2 000
2 000
1 500
1 500
1 000
1 000
500
0
3 km
500
7 km
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
12 km
17 km
22 km
27 km
40 km
75 km
110 km
135 km
175 km
250 km
350 km
0
490 km
159
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 7.2. Iceland Telecom: price of domestic telephone calls, 1988-97
Three minute call at the standard daytime rate, including VAT
Local call
Medium distance
Long distance
1.60
1.60
1.40
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0
0
Jan. 88
July 88
July 89
Nov. 90
Oct. 91
Feb. 92
Sept. 93
June 94
Aug. 95
Dec. 96
1 Nov. 97
11 Nov. 97
Source: OECD.
calls between adjacent trunk calling zones. The size of area codes varies in Sweden and critics considered that
the new pricing structure was unfair. In 1998, Telia bowed to this criticism and introduced a new price for calls
between neighbouring area codes. Under the modified structure, Telia charges the price of a local call plus
US$0.003 for calls to neighbouring area codes. The response of Tele-2, Telia’s largest rival, was to divide Sweden
into eight areas within which its customers can make calls at local call rates. Prior to this, according to Tele-2,
Sweden had more than 250 local call areas. At the beginning of 1998, Portugal Telecom was another PTO to
reduce the number of distance pricing bands, with the number falling from seven to three. Under the new system, the size of local calling areas was increased and users could reach around twice the number of access lines
for the price of a local call. For long-distance services there are now only two pricing bands. The first is between
local boundaries up to 50 kilometres and the second for all calls beyond that distance.
In large OECD countries the impact of lower prices and postalised rates is quite extraordinary. In 1998,
MCI’s “Five Cent Sundays” enabled customers to make national calls the length and breadth of the
United States for US$0.05 per minute. MCI reports that the introduction of “Five Cent Sundays” generated more
traffic than the previous busiest days such as “Mother’s Day”. In the United States, competition in long-distance
markets has driven prices below those of short-distance markets, where incumbent local exchange carriers
exercise considerable monopoly power. Consider, for example, that it is less expensive for a customer in
New York City to call Los Angeles or Miami (for example, US$0.10 from AT&T) than to make a discounted call to
northern New Jersey (US$0.12 under Bell Atlantic’s Economy Calling Plan). Indeed, a customer in the
United States can call anywhere in the United Kingdom for US$0.12 via AT&T – the same price as a call from
New York to northern New Jersey via Bell Atlantic.
160
The least expensive long-distance call in the United States now costs the same as the average peak rate
local call in Europe (the difference being US$0.003 after tax). While some might say this is comparing different
services, the main point is to show that a first cross-over point has been reached. In 1992, MCI’s least expensive
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
national call in the United States cost 3.5 times more than the average peak-rate local call in Europe. By 1998
the pricing of these services had reached parity. This raises the question of how long local and long-distance
services will continue to be treated as separate markets. The impact of the Internet, which is flourishing based
almost wholly on rates that are indifferent to distance, is likely to increase pressure on traditional distancesensitive pricing structures.
The other very welcome feature of postalised rates is their simplicity for consumers. The first decade of
competition in OECD countries brought forth an increasingly diverse range of tariff discount schemes. While
much of the innovation was very welcome, and tariff differentiation for different market segments fuelled enormous growth in markets such as mobile communication (e.g. low-user schemes, pre-paid airtime, etc.), some
schemes were very complex. In addition, some schemes relied on consumers having to predict future calling
patterns to maximise benefits and being charged more if their calling patterns did not meet these expectations.
For some user, this made it difficult to select the right scheme or service provider. Some critics claimed this was
part of the reason for their introduction, so that it was difficult for users to compare prices. On the other hand,
it has become evident that, as competition matures in OECD countries, users are demanding, and receiving,
clearer and more understandable pricing structures.
The introduction of postalised rates is one way PTOs in which are responding to consumer frustrations with
complicated tariff schemes. Schemes with postalised rates are proving most popular in the largest OECD countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States. In 1998, PTOs in all three countries have schemes which
allow users to make long-distance calls anywhere in the country for the same price. For example, Optus Communications offers off-peak long-distance calls across Australia for US$0.11 per minute and US$0.07 per minute
on weekends. Bell Canada offers long-distance calls anywhere in Canada for US$0.07 on weeknights and weekends. In the United States, long-distance rates of US$0.10 per minute for long-distance calls are common, irrespective of time of day or week, on payment of a small subscription fee.
Competitive markets are also bringing forth tariff schemes offering to cap the price of long-distance calling.
For example, Sprint Canada offers unlimited off-peak and weekend long-distance calls for US$14.40 per month.
In Australia, Optus Communications and Telstra limit the price paid for individual long-distance calls to US$2.23
on weeknights, irrespective of duration. Such offers are not restricted to domestic calls. Telecom New Zealand,
for example, offers users the opportunity to call Australia at weekends for a flat rate of US$6.60, irrespective of
the length of the call. Telecom New Zealand also has flat rate international calls of US$9.90 to Canada, Ireland,
the United Kingdom and the United States. Users making calls of over 12 minutes to these countries, at the
least expensive discount rate, can benefit from the scheme. The attraction of these schemes for many users is
not just the potential price reductions but also their simplicity.
The biggest difference between list prices and discount rates is for international calls from the United
States. By way of example, it is instructive to compare AT&T’s discount rates for international calls with those
of other OECD countries. These are, on average, 68 per cent less expensive than the least expensive AT&T standard listed price (Figure 7.3). To receive these discounts, users pay a fixed US$3.00 subscription fee to AT&T.
In return, for calls between the United States and the United Kingdom, instead of paying US$1.14 (standard
peak rate) or US$0.83 (standard off-peak rate), as noted above, users would pay just US$0.12 per minute.
Business, Residential and International Baskets
The OECD’s tariff methodology enables comparisons to be made using a basket of the different elements
needed for a particular telecommunication service. For example, a residential telephone user pays for a connection to the PSTN and the rental of a telecommunication mainline to an exchange. In the OECD basket these
are called fixed charges, and the per annum fixed charge for residential users is comprised of a connection
spread over five years and the yearly cost of line rental. The residential basket also includes a usage charge,
which is a number of calls spread over different distances and times of day. The telephony basket for business
users comprises the same elements and, in reality, is for a small business user since it comprises only one line.
Larger business users would, of course, use a mix of other services, including leased lines. Baskets are also
available for international service for business and residential users.
OECD 1999
161
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 7.3. AT&T standard and discount prices, mid-1998
Rate per minute in US$
AT&T International One Rate Plan
Standard peak
Standard off-peak
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0
0
n
ia
n
m
ny
ds
rk
da
ce rway land rland ourg
nd
pa
str
na ngdo erma erlan wede Fran
ma Finla
Ja
Au
Ire itze emb
No
i
Ca
en
S
h
G
K
t
D
w
x
e
d
S
N
Lu
ite
Un
ly
Ita
l
y
d
d
lia
ce
ain tuga
um
lan urke ree ealan
lgi
r
Sp
T
G
Ice
Z
Be
Po
w
Ne
tra
s
Au
Destination country
Source: OECD.
The difference between standard listed prices and what subscribers to discount schemes pay is largely
proportional to the amount of competition in any given market. One reason why PTOs in competitive markets
favour discount schemes rather than merely reducing the cost of calls across the board, is to try to win customer
loyalty. As regulatory frameworks have made it easier for customers to switch their service supplier, PTOs have
designed schemes which make it less worthwhile for customers to switch back and forth for particular promotions. Discount schemes primarily benefit customers who are loyal to one service supplier. In some circumstances they penalise users who, for whatever reason, do not sign up for any scheme because these customers
pay standard prices. Users can also be penalised when standard list prices are used as an element in calculating the cost of calls, such as is often the case in hotels..
162
Where competitive choice is not available to users, the standard list prices are generally what the customer
pays. With very few exceptions, such as the United Kingdom, the vast majority of users do not have a choice of
local access provider. Accordingly, unless a PTO is trying to stimulate sales, such as discounting second residential line connections or local calls for Internet access, there is little reason for discount schemes. This discussion raises the questions of the utility of comparisons of standard prices and how discounts impact on such
comparisons. Commencing with the question of utility, comparisons of standard prices show the maximum
price users can expect to pay in OECD countries. Accordingly, Tables 7.2 and 7.3 (Figures 7.4 and 7.5) show what
business and residential users would pay for a basket of telecommunication services, before the application of
any particular discount plan. For policy makers the value of these comparisons is that standard tariffs are usually the rates used in price regulation (Table 7.4). The main reason for regulatory interest in tariffs, even after
market liberalisation, is to ensure that companies with monopoly power face some price discipline until competition matures. Where there is little or no effective competition, the standard prices are still the ones paid
by business and residential users. At the same time, no matter how attractive the discount on offer, the standard tariffs provide the starting point.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.2.
OECD basket of business telephone charges, August 1998
Values express the average annual spending by a business user, excluding tax1
Fixed charge
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average3
Usage charge
US$
PPP
US$
175.12
246.42
188.82
312.43
55.22
192.29
248.36
122.00
154.62
100.42
124.19
136.86
203.48
196.42
242.90
23.64
165.35
280.50
195.78
351.02
182.01
55.72
148.01
126.47
190.13
231.67
26.83
271.12
215.97
178.06
221.67
220.01
178.13
395.48
117.49
143.50
203.57
104.28
133.29
119.55
275.99
110.37
197.55
208.95
192.78
43.78
158.99
459.83
182.97
450.02
137.88
101.30
189.75
147.06
154.58
167.88
49.68
231.73
215.97
190.14
786.96
1 012.42
773.28
275.23
580.18
434.58
431.80
1 019.43
986.75
837.56
468.75
293.63
734.31
806.75
785.81
252.14
280.18
962.17
485.13
572.80
473.83
890.21
981.74
1 241.37
391.23
1 091.41
464.66
695.36
820.66
683.80
Total charge
PPP
1
1
1
1
1
1
996.16
903.95
729.51
348.39
234.42
324.31
353.93
871.31
850.65
997.09
041.66
236.80
712.92
858.24
623.66
466.93
269.40
577.32
453.40
734.36
358.96
618.56
258.64
443.45
318.07
790.88
860.48
594.32
820.66
780.98
US$
PPP
962.08
1 258.84
962.10
587.66
635.40
626.86
680.16
1 141.43
1 141.37
937.97
592.94
430.49
937.79
1 003.16
1 028.71
275.79
445.53
1 242.66
680.91
923.82
655.84
945.92
1 129.75
1 367.84
581.36
1 323.08
491.48
966.48
1 036.63
861.86
1 217.82
1 123.96
907.64
743.87
1 351.91
467.81
557.51
975.59
983.94
1 116.64
1 317.65
347.17
910.47
1 067.19
816.44
510.72
428.39
2 037.15
636.37
1 184.38
496.85
1 719.86
1 448.39
1 590.51
472.65
958.75
910.15
826.05
1 036.63
971.12
1.
The usage charge includes a basket of 3 449 calls. For a full description of the tariff comparison methodology for these and other baskets, see OECD, ICCP
Series No. 22, Performance Indicators for Public Telecommunications Operators. Quarterly comparisons are now available from Eurodata. Refer to the
OECD/ICCP home page at http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/cm/.
2.
The Japanese connection charge is spread over 20 years. (See Chapter 4 for further explanation.)
3.
The OECD average is a simple rather than a weighted average.
Source: OECD and Eurodata.
In addition, comparisons of standard tariffs can be used as a starting point for further analysis of the merits
of different discount plans. Bearing this in mind, the OECD, together with the Eurodata Foundation, has developed tariff comparison models which enable users to compare the impact of discount plans on standard prices.
A regulatory authority can use this tool to calculate the impact of a particular discount plan against the average
OECD usage pattern or to define a particular usage pattern for their country. The tool can also be used to compare discount plans for certain types of services such as for users of Internet. In this case, for example, the duration of calls can be lengthened and discount plans can be applied to local calls. This is an important feature for
comparisons as users increasingly use the PSTN to access the Internet as well as for telephony.
In respect to usage patterns and discount plans, one further caveat needs to be borne in mind. It is not the
case that all discount plans benefit all types of users. For some users, the standard list prices are actually less
expensive than signing up for a certain discount plan. For example, applying some discount plans to the average OECD usage pattern actually causes the cost of the basket to rise. The main concern for policy makers, particularly in the period immediately after liberalisation, is that complicated discount plans can be confusing for
users. However, the tendency in those OECD countries with the longest experience with open markets is for
discount plans to become less complicated and more user friendly as competition increases. In this respect,
the role of the World Wide Web is helping users compare discount plans in ways that were not readily accessible before its advent. While consumers making comparisons over the World Wide Web may be more sophisticated than the average telephony user, the benefits of the new schemes generated by this scrutiny are made
available to all customers.
OECD 1999
163
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.3.
OECD basket of residential telephone charges, August 1998
Values express the average annual spending by a residential user, including tax1
Fixed charge
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average3
Usage charge
Total charge
US$
PPP
US$
PPP
US$
PPP
98.71
203.53
228.47
170.53
57.98
240.36
303.00
147.14
179.35
118.49
92.87
81.51
246.21
161.05
176.85
26.01
190.16
184.77
230.04
217.08
223.87
67.97
173.17
146.71
178.71
246.73
30.85
215.55
90.20
163.03
124.95
181.73
215.54
215.86
123.36
179.37
248.36
125.76
154.62
141.06
206.37
65.74
239.03
171.33
140.36
48.16
182.84
302.90
214.99
278.31
169.60
123.59
222.01
170.59
145.29
178.79
57.13
184.23
90.20
169.04
238.22
340.97
252.31
87.70
167.70
163.54
194.96
344.22
306.80
326.90
155.94
119.44
199.55
248.63
261.45
89.11
97.70
313.06
172.68
114.06
190.61
317.53
341.79
427.85
165.88
375.76
140.09
214.20
250.27
228.24
301.55
304.43
238.02
111.02
356.81
122.04
159.81
294.20
264.48
389.16
346.52
96.33
193.74
264.50
207.50
165.03
93.94
513.21
161.39
146.23
144.41
577.33
438.19
497.50
134.86
272.29
259.43
183.08
250.27
258.18
336.93
544.50
480.78
258.23
225.68
403.90
497.96
491.35
486.16
445.39
248.80
200.96
445.75
409.68
438.31
115.12
287.86
497.83
402.72
331.14
414.48
385.51
514.96
574.56
344.59
622.49
170.94
429.76
340.47
391.27
426.50
486.16
453.56
326.88
480.18
301.42
408.17
419.96
419.10
530.23
552.89
162.06
432.77
435.83
347.86
213.19
276.78
816.11
376.38
424.54
314.00
700.92
660.20
668.09
280.15
451.08
316.56
367.31
340.47
427.22
1.
The usage charge includes a basket of 1 219 calls. For a full description of the tariff comparison methodology for these and other baskets, see OECD, ICCP
Series No. 22, Performance Indicators for Public Telecommunications Operators. Quarterly comparisons are now available from Eurodata. Refer to the
OECD/ICCP home page at http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/cm/.
2.
The Japanese connection charge is spread over 20 years. (See Chapter 4 for further explanation.)
3.
The OECD average is a simple rather than a weighted average.
Source: OECD and Eurodata.
It is not possible here to compare every discount plan for every service for all OECD countries. However,
it is possible to show, by way of example, the impact of certain discount plans on the standard prices shown in
the residential, business and international baskets for a certain company. The OECD/Eurodata tariff model is
available for regulators, PTOs or other analysts to do this for the country or plan that is of most interest to them.
For the business basket, BT’s “Business Choices” plan was chosen because this country is a leader in local infrastructure competition, including small business users. For the residential basket, Bell Canada’s “First Rate”
plan was chosen for its simplicity and because, by geographical area, Canada is the largest OECD country. For
the international basket, the discount plan of AT&T was chosen because it has the largest difference between
standard international and discount plan rates.
– Under BT’s “Business Choices” (Level 1) discount plan, which is aimed at small business users, a user
would pay US$33 per annum in additional fixed charges, and receive discounts of 20 per cent on local
calls and 27 per cent on long-distance and international calls. The overall impact of the application of
this scheme is to bring down BT’s national business basket by 12.2 per cent compared to the outcome
shown in Table 7.2. Savings would, of course, be greater if international calls were included.
164
– By using Bell Canada’s “First Rate” discount plan, a residential user with the OECD’s usage pattern would
significantly reduce his or her costs. Thus, it might be expected that a user with the OECD’s usage pattern
would sign up for this scheme, as there is no subscription fee. On the other hand, experience shows that
discount plans encourage users to alter their usual calling patterns. In this case, the OECD average user
might prefer Sprint Canada’s discount plan which would give a higher basket cost but which offers unlimited off-peak and weekend long-distance calls.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Figure 7.4. OECD business tariff basket, August 1998
Usage
Fixed
2 500
2 500
2 000
2 000
1 500
1 500
1 000
1 000
500
500
0
0
d
d
ly
d
d
s
s
o
e ny
e
ry
n ay
a
d
e
a
n
al
g
d
rk
ia
ic
in
ia
m ey
m
lan our ma ede rw Kore inlan rland anad Japa gdo lgiu Turk relan erlan erag ranc rma State Ita reec ustr ealan stral unga publ ortug Spa olan exic
I
P
v
F Ge
A Z Au H
M
e P
z
Ice emb Den Sw No
G
F the
in Be
t
C
a
d
i
R
K
e
w CD
w
x
t
e
i
h
d
e
u
S
c
n
N
e
L
N
e
it
U
OE
Cz
Un
Notes: Excluding tax. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$.
Source: OECD, EURODATA.
Figure 7.5. OECD residential tariff basket, August 1998
Usage
Fixed
900
900
800
800
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
y ce
e
y da
n
d
d
s
a
e
d
s
n
d
d
y
d
o
ly
in
ia
lic
m
ry
al
rg
rk
ia
lan Kore bou wede nma orwaTurke ana State Japa gdom rland inlan rman Fran alan stral verag relan Ita erlan elgiu pub ustr reec nga rtug Spa olan exic
P
A
I
F Ge
M
G Hu Po
Ice
C ed
in the
N
B h Re
Ze Au D a
itz
em S De
K
x
w
t
w
e
i
d N
S
C
Lu
ec
Ne
Un
ite
OE
Cz
Un
Notes: Including tax. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$.
Source: OECD, EURODATA.
OECD 1999
165
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.4. Tariff regulation in OECD countries
Regulatory body
166
Coverage
Action/Method
Australia
Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
Austria
Telekom Control Commission
(Federal Minister of Science
and Transport)
Voice telephony service via a fixed
network and leased lines
where the supplier has significant
market power
PTO sets tariffs with approval
by the regulatory authority
Belgium
Minister of Telecommunications
or IBPT
Basic voice telephony service
Price caps
Canada
Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications
Commission
Incumbent PTOs only: Utility
segment services (local
and optional) and Interconnection
Services; Most other services
competitive and CRTC has forborne
from regulation
Utility segment services – price caps
or prior approval.
Interconnection services – prior
approval, generally based
on incremental costs plus allowed
mark-up.
Czech Republic
Ministry of Transport
and Communications – Czech
Telecommunication Office
(international tariffs);
Ministry of Finance (national tariffs)
Telephone services
Price caps
Denmark
National Telecom Agency
USO services
Price caps
Finland
Operators may set tariffs freely
without approval
France
Autorité de régulation
des télécommunications
and the Ministry in charge
of telecommunications
Monopoly and USO services
Price caps
Germany
Regulatory Authority
for Telecommunications and Posts
(under the Federal Ministry
of Economics)
Transmission lines and voice
telephony services where
the provider has a dominant market
position
Approval by the regulatory authority
Greece
National Telecommunications
Commission
OTE’s tariffs
1997: Price caps of 3%
1998: no conditions
Hungary
Minister of Transport,
Telecommunication and Water
Management (in accordance
with the Minister of Finance)
Voice telephony services provided
on fixed network
Price caps
Iceland
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Ireland
Office of the Director
of Telecommunications Regulation
(ODTR)
PSTN and ISDN services
Price cap for a basket of services
Italy
National Regulatory Agency
(Autorità per le garanzie nelle
Comunicazioni, AGCOM)
Main Telecom Italia network services Price caps
Japan
Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications
Telecommunications services
Notification system
End-user charges for the services
that NTT provides which
are essential to the community
and economy and non-competitive,
such as telephones, ISDN
and leased circuit services in local
telecommunications sectors.
Price caps
Korea
Ministry of Information
and Communication (MIC)
Tariff of KT’s local telephone service
and SK Telecom’s cellular service
Rate of return principle
Luxembourg
Institut Luxembourgeois
des télécommunications
n.a.
n.a.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.4. Tariff regulation in OECD countries (cont.)
Regulatory body
Coverage
Action/Method
Mexico
Federal Telecommunication
Commission
Providers of telecommunication
public networks with substantial
market control
Price ceilings on baskets
Netherlands
Ministry of Transport, Public Works
and Water Management
Public voice telephony for the low
user scheme which is defined
in the framework of Universal
Service
PTOs with significant market power
regarding tariffs for leased lines
and public voice telephony
Fixation of prices
Criteria set out in the framework
of the Open Network Provision
(ONP) regulations of the EU
New Zealand
Ministry of Commerce
(‘‘Kiwishare’’ obligations)
Telecom NZ residential lines
Price of a residential local line shall
not increase at a rate faster than
the rate of inflation. Residential
lines must be priced on a uniform
basis.
Norway
Norwegian Post
and Telecommunications Authority
Operators with ‘‘significant market
power’’
Cost-oriented pricing. Incumbent
PTO is regulated by a price cap
model.
Poland
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Portugal
Instituto das Comunicações
de Portugal, General-Directorate
for Trade and Competition
Portugal Telecom (PSTN, leased
lines, interconnection charges, telex,
telegraph, broadcasting)
Cost orientation, non-discrimination
and transparency. Price caps for
PSTN and leased line services
Spain
Comisión Delegada del Gobierno
on economic subjects with previous
report of Comision del Mercado
de las Telecomunicaciones
Basic PTO services
Maximum and minimum prices
or criteria for setting prices
Sweden
National Post and Telecom Agency
Fixed network
Cost-based prices for calls on fixed
network and for telecommunications
network capacity. Line rentals
are subject to a price cap.
Switzerland
Federal Council
Swisscom’s services: connection
Price caps
for real-time voice transmission
and voice band and digital data
transmission; suburban
communications (over local networks
or a distance of approximately
10 km); city-to-city communications
(not over local networks or over
a distance of more than 10 km);
supplement for using a public pay
telephone.
Turkey
Ministry of Transport
and Communications
Telecommunications services
By approval of the Ministry.
Price cap regulation for value-added
services.
United Kingdom
OFTEL
BT’s retail tariffs
BT is free to set its retail tariffs
as it wishes, subject to general
requirements prohibiting undue
discrimination and undue
preference, and against unfair
competition. Also retail price control
of RPI-4.5% which applies only
to services provided
to the residential market.
United States
FCC
All common carriers are required
The rates of the Bell Operating
to file tariffs accordiing
Companies and GTE are subject
to the regulatory guidelines
to price cap regulation.
established by FCC. Non-dominant
carriers generally set their own rates.
Source:
OECD.
OECD 1999
167
Communications Outlook 1999
– Using AT&T’s “OneRate” International calling plan, for a monthly payment of US$3 with the OECD’s usage
pattern, would cut 64 per cent from the usage charges for a residential user shown in Tables 7.5 and 7.6.
A similar discount for business users results in slightly higher savings. In other words, when it comes to
the prices actually paid by users, the United States, although having among the highest standard prices
listed for international service, has some of the lowest actual prices for subscribers to discount plans. By
way of contrast, with BT’s “Business Choices” plan, described above, a user would receive a discount of
27 per cent on international calls but this is based on much lower listed prices.
In general, the pattern of comparisons of standard prices has changed little since the OECD commenced
this work in 1989. Business and residential users in Scandinavian countries continue to enjoy the lowest prices
in the OECD area. In past editions of the Communications Outlook many specific factors have been raised as to why
this is the case, such as when reform of the telecommunication sector commenced and increased commercial
autonomy of PTOs. That being said, there are undoubtedly countries that analysts like to compare with each
other, believing they share many things in common such as geography, GDP per capita and social factors. One
reason for this is to attempt to see more clearly what impacts changes in telecommunication policy are having
on the pricing of services. For example, policy makers from the United Kingdom would note that BT’s ranking
has improved, even without the inclusion of discounts, since the ending of the duopoly.
A note should also be made of the currency conversion rates used for tariff comparisons. Elsewhere in the
Communications Outlook average annual rates are used to convert currencies. For “snapshot” comparisons, from
August 1998, the exchange rates and purchasing power rates are calculated based on the monthly figure for
each category.
Time series
The OECD’s tariff database enables comparisons of major pricing trends between 1990 and 1998.
Figure 7.6 displays trends in the OECD for the business and residential tariff baskets from 1990 to 1998. For
business users the cost of a basket of services in the OECD area has fallen by 11 per cent. The main reason for
the fall is the 18 per cent reduction in usage charges. In the OECD’s tariff basket, fixed charges make up 20 per
cent of the cost and usage charges the remaining 80 per cent. Thus, while fixed charges have increased by
17.6 per cent, the overall cost of the basket has fallen. For residential users the cost of the OECD basket has
fallen by nearly 7 per cent from 1990 to 1998. During that time, fixed charges rose by 15 per cent and usage
charges declined by 21 per cent. In the OECD’s residential tariff basket, fixed charges make up 40 per cent of
the cost and usage charges the other 60 per cent.
Figure 7.7 displays the trends in the OECD for the business tariff baskets in those countries that had competition or monopolies for PSTN services from 1990 to 1998. When a country liberalises its market, it is shifted
from the monopoly index to the index for countries with competition. This means that the impact of competition can be seen in both indices. Accordingly, the usage charges in monopoly markets reflect a downwards
trend immediately prior to market liberalisation in a number of countries in 1997 and 1998, as telecommunication carriers in these countries prepare for competition. As these countries are added to the index for countries
with competitive markets, the trend rises slightly before once again falling in early 1998. Figure 7.8 displays the
trends in the OECD for the residential tariff baskets in those countries that had competition or monopolies for
PSTN services from 1990 to 1998. The fixed and usage charges exhibit much the same trend as for the business
basket. Figure 7.9 shows the trends in the OECD business and residential tariff baskets in different markets.
In 1998, the gap between the two indexes has become much wider as those countries yet to introduce competition are among the most expensive for both business and residential users.
168
Rebalancing and postalisation are also evident in the trends in the price of calls at different distances
(Figure 7.10). Since 1990, the average price of local calls in OECD countries, as represented by the price of a
call at three kilometres, has risen by more than 30 per cent. Much of the increase occurred prior to 1992 and
recently there has been a slight downwards trend due to the abolition of certain peak rates. By way of contrast,
the average price of a call at 27 kilometres has risen sharply in the two years to 1998. The main reason for this
is postalisation. As 27 kilometres is outside the local calling areas for most OECD countries, prices for calls in
this band have risen as a result of national postalised rates. Thus, as certain PTOs, such as those in Belgium,
France, New Zealand and the Netherlands, reduced the number of their tariff bands, some short-distance
prices have risen as longer-distance call prices have fallen.
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 7.5. Collection charges per minute (peak rate), August 1998
1.74
0.95
0.38
1.48
0.33
0.57
0.27
0.44
0.48
0.43
0.50
0.51
0.49
0.50
1.58
0.60
1.17
1.68
0.69
0.62
0.62
1.64
1.30
1.22
0.99
1.10
1.27
1.09
1.52
1.17
1.68
0.75
0.83
0.91
1.64
1.30
1.22
1.78
1.46
1.27
1.53
1.91
1.14
0.47
0.41
1.02
0.71
0.47
0.60
0.17
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.35
0.51
1.74
0.96
1.48
0.24
0.57
0.27
0.44
0.48
0.43
0.40
0.62
0.49
0.40
1.49
1.14
1.35
1.90
1.14
2.55
1.89
2.03
0.96
1.47
0.89
0.53
1.57
0.70
1.57
1.66
1.09
1.17
1.01
0.59
1.79
1.64
1.49
1.16
1.98
1.46
1.27
1.53
1.05
0.57
0.21
0.41
0.48
0.43
0.30
0.51
0.49
0.40
1.38
0.62
1.64
1.72
1.22
0.89
1.32
1.27
0.69
2.05
0.44
0.57
0.47
0.16
0.62
0.49
0.55
1.41
0.74
0.59
0.40
0.88
0.49
0.55
1.65
1.14
0.65
0.58
1.07
1.19
0.59
0.60
0.35
0.47
0.49
0.49
0.72
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.96
0.43
1.48
0.35
0.57
0.32
0.55
0.43
0.50
0.73
0.49
0.50
1.73
1.14
0.47
0.58
1.35
0.88
0.59
0.60
0.17
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.95
0.43
1.48
0.33
0.57
0.27
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.73
0.49
0.50
1.70
0.92
0.47
0.58
0.55
0.88
0.24
0.18
0.31
0.47
0.49
0.49
0.43
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.95
0.43
1.48
0.24
0.57
0.15
0.41
0.48
0.43
0.98
0.35
0.55
0.59
0.67
0.47
0.60
0.17
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.72
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.95
0.38
1.48
0.24
0.57
0.21
0.41
0.48
0.43
0.30
1.14
0.47
0.82
1.40
0.88
0.71
0.65
0.42
0.53
0.43
0.49
0.95
0.85
0.75
1.74
0.96
0.65
1.48
0.48
0.59
0.62
0.49
0.74
0.65
0.70
0.88
0.69
0.47
0.41
0.50
0.62
0.36
0.60
0.29
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.43
0.22
0.41
1.73
0.80
0.38
1.48
0.20
0.27
0.21
0.44
0.48
0.43
0.30
0.51
0.49
0.62
0.49 0.49
0.40 0.40 0.95
1.38 1.48 1.93 1.14
0.70
0.53
0.55
0.15
1.02
0.46
0.77
0.31
0.41
0.55
0.53
0.61
0.34
0.60
0.99
0.51
0.54
0.83
0.27
0.27
0.32
0.91
0.60
0.56
0.45
0.51
0.74
0.33
Average
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Switzerland
1.14
0.47
0.82
1.13
0.46
0.39
0.60
0.42
0.47
0.49
0.49
0.72
0.44
0.51
2.04
0.96
0.43
1.48
0.35
0.57
0.32
Sweden
0.92
0.47
0.58
0.75
0.88
0.24
0.20
0.35
0.47
0.49
0.49
0.43
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.96
0.43
1.48
0.24
0.57
Spain
0.58
0.82
1.09
0.81
2.14
1.18
1.66
0.78
1.06
0.89
0.53
0.95
0.79
1.57
1.52
0.81
1.17
1.68
0.44
Portugal
0.92
0.47
0.41
0.59
0.67
0.42
0.60
0.31
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.35
0.51
1.74
0.95
0.38
1.48
Poland
0.51
1.74
0.96
0.43
1.48
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.49
0.48
0.43
0.40
0.73
0.49
0.32
1.42
1.04
1.17
1.49
1.27
1.74
1.18
2.03
0.78
1.06
0.89
0.53
1.57
1.13
1.57
1.22
Norway
0.44
0.75
1.74
0.96
0.65
1.48
0.60
1.02
0.32
0.55
0.57
0.47
0.50
0.73
1.27
0.95
1.74
0.92
1.17
1.09
1.02
1.36
1.18
1.52
0.82
1.06
0.89
0.53
0.95
1.13
1.57
New Zealand
0.72
0.44
0.51
2.04
0.96
0.43
1.48
0.33
0.57
0.32
0.41
0.74
0.59
0.50
0.88
0.32
0.55
1.76
0.84
0.35
0.55
0.96
0.67
0.47
0.60
0.17
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.72
0.44
Mexico
0.78
0.47
0.55
0.70
0.89
0.47
0.61
0.35
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.50
Luxembourg
1.60
0.65
0.91
0.85
1.19
0.53
0.59
0.52
0.47
0.89
0.53
Netherlands
0.49
0.95
0.44
0.51
1.74
0.96
0.54
1.48
0.35
0.59
0.32
0.44
0.48
0.43
0.50
0.73
0.32
0.50
2.05
1.14
0.35
0.91
1.00
0.71
0.47
0.61
0.42
0.53
0.49
Italy
Greece
Germany
0.49
0.49
0.43
0.35
0.51
1.73
0.95
0.38
1.48
0.20
0.57
0.21
0.41
0.48
0.43
0.30
0.51
0.49
0.40
1.31
1.14
0.47
0.58
0.99
0.88
0.59
0.60
0.35
0.41
Korea
0.41
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.35
0.51
1.73
0.95
0.38
1.48
0.24
0.57
0.21
0.44
0.48
0.43
0.40
0.51
0.49
0.40
1.40
0.87
0.35
0.41
0.80
0.46
0.36
0.52
0.17
Japan
0.87
0.47
0.41
0.61
0.67
0.47
0.58
Ireland
0.80 1.14 0.92 0.92
0.53 0.35 0.47 0.47
0.55 0.82 0.41 0.58
1.27 0.75 0.75
1.13
0.67 0.88
0.46 0.47
0.27
0.77 0.60 0.25
0.31 0.42 0.31 0.35
0.41 0.47 0.41 0.47
0.55 0.49 0.49 0.49
0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49
0.61 0.72 0.43 0.43
0.34 0.44 0.44 0.44
0.60 0.51 0.51 0.51
0.99 2.04 1.74 1.74
1.05 0.96 0.96 0.96
0.54 0.54 0.43 0.43
0.94 1.48 1.48 1.48
0.29 0.33 0.24 0.24
0.27 0.57 0.57 0.57
0.32 0.32 0.15 0.15
0.91 0.37 0.41 0.44
0.60 0.74 0.48 0.48
0.65 0.59 0.43 0.43
0.45 0.40 0.16 0.16
0.51 0.88 0.62 0.62
0.74 0.32 0.49 0.49
0.33 0.55 0.40 0.55
0.61 1.76 1.53 1.55
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
1.03 1.03
0.47
0.55
0.86 1.00
0.46 0.67
0.47 0.47
0.60 0.60
0.35 0.17
0.41 0.41
0.49 0.49
0.36 0.49
0.72 0.50
0.44 0.35
0.51 0.51
1.74 1.74
0.96 0.96
0.43 0.38
1.48 1.48
0.27 0.20
0.57 0.57
0.27 0.21
0.41 0.41
0.48 0.48
0.43 0.43
0.50 0.40
0.51 0.62
0.49 0.49
0.55 0.40
1.51 1.63
Iceland
0.82
1.09
0.75
1.36
0.82
0.91
0.78
1.06
0.55
0.53
0.95
0.79
1.57
1.52
0.81
0.54
1.68
0.44
0.24
0.62
0.91
0.99
1.22
0.80
1.10
1.27
0.69
1.59
Hungary
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Austria
From/To
Australia
In US$
0.99
0.57
0.72
0.88
0.97
0.60
0.75
0.40
0.56
0.57
0.50
0.71
0.51
0.72
1.68
0.92
0.56
1.47
0.36
0.54
0.39
0.66
0.69
0.61
0.56
0.76
0.66
0.60
1.55
Note: Taxes are excluded. One minute charge is calculated by (one initial minute + three additional minutes)/4.
Source: OECD.
Telecommunication Pricing
169
1.24
0.67
0.28
0.99
0.29
0.43
0.26
0.44
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.32
0.37
1.12
0.42
1.17
1.12
0.60
0.35
0.51
1.64
0.97
1.12
0.75
0.82
0.99
0.98
1.10
Note: Taxes are excluded. One minute charge is calculated by (one initial minute + three additional minutes) /4.
Source: OECD.
1.17
1.12
0.67
0.43
0.91
1.64
0.97
1.12
1.34
1.10
0.99
1.36
1.34
1.09
0.35
0.30
0.76
0.71
0.30
0.47
0.14
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.38
0.27
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.99
0.20
0.43
0.26
0.44
0.39
0.38
0.30
0.48
0.32
0.33
0.91
1.09
1.17
1.90
0.86
2.55
1.89
2.03
0.77
1.47
0.75
0.53
1.18
0.57
1.31
1.06
0.77
1.17
0.88
0.32
1.79
1.64
1.04
0.82
1.48
1.10
0.99
1.36
0.84
0.43
0.20
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.23
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.90
0.51
1.64
1.35
1.12
0.67
0.99
0.99
0.55
1.38
0.44
0.41
0.40
0.12
0.48
0.32
0.46
0.93
0.57
0.50
0.30
0.69
0.32
0.46
1.33
0.98
0.53
0.51
0.80
1.19
0.42
0.46
0.28
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.31
0.43
0.31
0.55
0.38
0.38
0.55
0.32
0.37
1.12
0.98
0.35
0.51
1.02
0.88
0.42
0.46
0.14
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.38
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.29
0.43
0.26
0.49
0.39
0.38
0.55
0.32
0.37
1.16
0.69
0.35
0.51
0.41
0.88
0.20
0.14
0.25
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.33
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.20
0.43
0.14
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.95
0.29
0.48
0.44
0.53
0.30
0.47
0.14
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.28
0.99
0.20
0.43
0.20
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.23
0.92
0.59
0.68
1.05
0.88
0.50
0.60
0.33
0.47
0.32
0.49
0.71
0.74
0.60
1.24
0.55
0.65
0.99
0.41
0.32
0.51
0.49
0.57
0.53
0.53
0.69
0.53
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.50
0.27
0.46
0.23
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.33
0.18
0.40
1.24
0.56
0.28
0.99
0.18
0.24
0.20
0.44
0.39
0.38
0.23
0.41
0.32
0.48
0.32 0.32
0.33 0.33 0.77
0.90 0.92 1.38 0.83
0.53
0.47
0.55
0.15
0.81
0.36
0.67
0.25
0.35
0.44
0.53
0.46
0.22
0.55
0.77
0.36
0.44
0.55
0.22
0.24
0.31
0.91
0.48
0.43
0.34
0.41
0.59
0.29
Average
United States
United Kingdom
Turkey
Switzerland
0.98
0.59
0.68
0.84
0.37
0.33
0.46
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.39
0.40
1.38
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.31
0.43
0.31
Sweden
0.69
0.35
0.51
0.56
0.88
0.20
0.14
0.28
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.33
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.20
0.43
Spain
0.42
0.70
1.09
0.61
2.14
1.06
1.66
0.63
1.06
0.75
0.53
0.71
0.40
1.31
0.96
0.57
1.17
1.12
0.39
Portugal
0.69
0.35
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.33
0.47
0.25
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.38
0.27
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.28
0.99
Poland
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.49
0.39
0.38
0.30
0.55
0.32
0.25
0.93
0.79
1.00
1.49
0.95
1.74
0.95
1.65
0.63
1.06
0.75
0.53
1.18
1.13
1.31
0.87
Norway
0.39
0.60
1.24
0.67
0.65
0.99
0.50
1.39
0.31
0.55
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.69
0.99
0.77
1.18
0.75
1.00
1.09
0.76
1.08
0.95
1.52
0.65
1.06
0.75
0.53
0.71
1.13
1.31
New Zealand
0.54
0.39
0.40
1.38
0.67
0.38
0.99
0.29
0.43
0.31
0.41
0.57
0.50
0.38
0.69
0.25
0.46
1.43
0.53
0.29
0.48
0.72
0.53
0.30
0.46
0.14
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.39
Mexico
0.53
0.35
0.48
0.52
0.71
0.38
0.47
0.28
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.38
Luxembourg
1.50
0.53
0.68
0.64
1.19
0.43
0.44
0.41
0.35
0.75
0.53
Netherlands
0.49
0.71
0.39
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.44
0.99
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.44
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.55
0.25
0.37
1.37
0.98
0.29
0.68
0.75
0.71
0.38
0.47
0.33
0.47
0.38
Italy
Greece
Germany
0.38
0.49
0.33
0.27
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.28
0.99
0.18
0.43
0.20
0.41
0.39
0.38
0.23
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.86
0.78
0.59
0.51
0.74
0.88
0.42
0.46
0.28
0.35
Korea
0.35
0.38
0.49
0.38
0.27
0.40
1.24
0.67
0.28
0.99
0.20
0.43
0.20
0.44
0.39
0.38
0.30
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.90
0.63
0.29
0.37
0.60
0.37
0.24
0.41
0.14
Japan
0.69
0.35
0.37
0.46
0.53
0.30
0.46
Ireland
0.53 1.09 0.69 0.69
0.47 0.29 0.35 0.35
0.55 0.68 0.37 0.51
0.95 0.56 0.56
0.91
0.53 0.88
0.31 0.38
0.21
0.67 0.46 0.14
0.25 0.33 0.25 0.28
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
0.44 0.38 0.38 0.38
0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49
0.46 0.54 0.33 0.33
0.22 0.39 0.39 0.39
0.55 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.77 1.38 1.24 1.24
0.74 0.67 0.67 0.67
0.44 0.44 0.38 0.38
0.62 0.99 0.99 0.99
0.24 0.29 0.20 0.20
0.24 0.43 0.43 0.43
0.31 0.31 0.14 0.14
0.91 0.37 0.41 0.44
0.48 0.57 0.39 0.39
0.53 0.50 0.38 0.38
0.34 0.30 0.12 0.12
0.41 0.69 0.48 0.48
0.59 0.25 0.32 0.32
0.29 0.46 0.33 0.46
0.41 1.43 1.01 0.93
France
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
0.97 0.75
0.35
0.48
0.65 0.75
0.37 0.53
0.38 0.38
0.46 0.46
0.28 0.14
0.35 0.35
0.38 0.38
0.36 0.49
0.54 0.38
0.39 0.27
0.40 0.40
1.24 1.24
0.67 0.67
0.38 0.28
0.99 0.99
0.22 0.18
0.43 0.43
0.26 0.20
0.41 0.41
0.39 0.39
0.38 0.38
0.38 0.30
0.41 0.48
0.32 0.32
0.46 0.33
1.08 1.04
Iceland
0.70
1.09
0.56
1.08
0.65
0.72
0.63
1.06
0.44
0.53
0.71
0.40
1.31
0.96
0.57
0.44
1.12
0.39
0.21
0.51
0.91
0.69
1.12
0.60
0.82
0.99
0.55
1.09
Hungary
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Austria
From/To
Australia
In US$
0.80
0.49
0.65
0.66
0.89
0.47
0.64
0.32
0.50
0.45
0.50
0.53
0.42
0.59
1.18
0.64
0.50
0.98
0.31
0.42
0.36
0.66
0.53
0.53
0.42
0.59
0.47
0.50
1.07
Communications Outlook 1999
170
Table 7.6. Collection charges per minute (off-peak rate), August 1998
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Figure 7.6. OECD business and residential tariff basket trends
Fixed charge
Usage charge
OECD weighted average (business)
Total
OECD weighted average (residential)
130
130
120
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
1990
60
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Notes: The average of index (1990 = 100) for each country weighted by the number of access lines. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$.
Luxembourg and Mexico are excluded.
Source: OECD.
Figure 7.7. OECD business tariff basket trends in different markets
Fixed charge
Usage charge
Total
Competitive markets
Non-competitive markets
160
160
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Notes: The simple average of index (1990 = 100) in each country. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$. Luxembourg and Mexico are excluded.
The countries with competitive markets are, from 1990 – US, UK, Japan, NZ; from 1992 – Canada, Australia; from 1993 – Sweden; from 1994 – Finland;
from 1997 – Denmark, Netherlands; from 1998 – Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
171
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 7.8. OECD residential tariff basket trends in different markets
Fixed charge
Usage charge
Total
Competitive markets
Non-competitive markets
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Notes: The simple average of index (1990 = 100) in each country. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$. Luxembourg and Mexico are excluded.
The countries with competitive markets are, from 1990 – US, UK; Japan, NZ; from 1992 – Canada, Australia; from 1993 – Sweden; from 1994 – Finland;
from 1997 – Denmark, Netherlands; from 1998 – Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway.
Source: OECD.
Figure 7.9. OECD tariff basket trends in different markets (total price)
Business non-competitive
Residential non-competitive
Business competitive
Residential competitive
1 200
1 200
1 000
1 000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
1990
172
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Figure 7.10. OECD tariff rebalancing by distance
Local
27 km
110 km
490 km
150
150
140
140
130
130
120
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Notes: The average of index (1990 = 100) in each country weighted by the number of mainlines. Calculation is based on PPPs expressed in US$.
Luxembourg and New Zealand are not included.
Source: OECD.
International
The International telecommunication basket assigns traffic equally between three zones in the OECD area.
The European countries form one zone, North America, the second, and the Asia/Pacific countries, the third.
The basket is expressed as an index, with the OECD average being equal to 100. This is the second time this
methodology has been used in the Communications Outlook. Prior to the 1997 Communications Outlook, a call-pair
methodology was used because it neutralised the impact of geography. In other words, it did not penalise
those countries with few close neighbours relative to European countries. Using zones represents a compromise, both to incorporate some element of distance and to enable this tool to be used as indicator of what
users actually pay. Accordingly, those countries with few near neighbours appear more expensive than they
would using a call-pair methodology. Nevertheless, the main reason they appear expensive in the International
basket is because of relatively high standard prices. Putting aside the issue of tariff discounts, the most important point to come out of the 1998 comparison is the dramatically improved position of France and the
Netherlands. Following market liberalisation these two countries have gone from ranking near the middle of
the OECD countries to having the lowest standard prices (Tables 7.7 and 7.8).
The standard international peak and off-peak rates for OECD countries are shown in Tables 7.5 and 7.6.
These tables provide a starting point against which to compare discount rates. Since 1991, standard prices,
sometimes called collection charges, for peak-rate international calls have sharply decreased in virtually every
OECD country while international traffic has increased (Figure 7.11). Exceptions are those countries in which
the PTOs prefer to increase the discount rather than decrease the list price (Table 7.9). The preference of operators in the United States is the obvious case in point: while the distinction between peak and off-peak has
been abolished in the discount plans of the leading PTOs, such as AT&T, MCI and Sprint, it is still maintained
in their respective lists of standard prices. At the same time, the actual prices paid by users are dramatically
OECD 1999
173
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.7.
OECD International Tariff Basket, August 1998
Zone Distribution Method in PPP expressed in US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Business
Residential
112.54
66.24
88.60
100.93
281.85
60.57
88.76
45.10
65.56
76.36
117.48
67.80
58.07
104.84
110.18
149.92
70.93
207.05
43.11
60.56
44.94
189.21
113.13
94.62
64.17
63.52
159.69
62.94
131.33
100.00
97.34
71.18
101.83
84.87
272.91
66.97
99.06
46.97
71.49
78.74
141.73
70.73
60.39
111.43
91.23
133.23
75.94
188.03
45.67
54.86
51.65
222.81
111.16
98.10
67.23
57.17
154.85
66.04
106.40
100.00
Note: OECD countries are divided into three regions (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific) and international call destinations are assumed to be
distributed equally to each area. The output is expressed in the form of an index so that the OECD average becomes 100.
Source: OECD.
lower in the case of these operators. Accordingly, while the average standard peak collection charge from the
United States via AT&T to all other OECD countries is US$1.55, and the off-peak average is US$1.07, the average
discount rate at all times of day is US$0.33. The other factor affecting these comparisons is that Australia,
Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States have fewer near neighbours than do the OECD
Member countries in Europe.
For this edition of the Communications Outlook two new baskets are included, which integrate both national
and international services for business and residential users (Tables 7.10 and 7.11). These baskets rely on an
assumed international call volume relative to national calls. For business users this amount is set at 2 per cent
of call volume, while for residential users it is set at 1 per cent of call volume. This translates into an international cost of 20 per cent for the integrated business basket and 15 per cent for the integrated residential basket. In practice, individual calling patterns will vary widely and policy makers using the OECD/Eurodata baskets
can vary these assumptions.
174
For the integrated baskets, calls are weighted by actual international traffic patterns between OECD countries. This introduces a greater element of distance which, for comparative purposes, tends to disadvantage
those countries with few near neighbours. On the other hand, this methodology provides a better understanding of what users actually pay. Discounts can be added to this comparison, although Tables 7.10 and 7.11 use
standard rates. It is interesting to compare the ranking of countries in the integrated basket relative to the
national baskets. For the integrated business basket, some countries show up as relatively less expensive,
while others become relatively more expensive. This reflects a combination of the actual prices of international
services and distance-sensitive pricing in terms of the major international destinations for each country. The
use of standard rates and greater distances also makes Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States
rank higher relative to their national basket positions. In the future, as prices become less distance sensitive,
this disadvantage should lessen for countries with few near neighbours.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.8.
OECD International Tariff Basket, August 1998
Zone Distribution Method in US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Business
Residential
105.19
87.78
111.13
94.34
156.74
96.04
128.12
62.43
89.98
75.90
62.55
99.47
70.78
116.61
164.26
95.79
87.29
149.45
54.58
55.89
70.19
123.13
104.41
96.29
93.39
103.71
102.03
87.14
155.39
100.00
90.81
94.15
127.46
79.17
151.47
105.98
142.71
64.89
97.93
78.10
75.32
103.57
73.45
123.69
135.74
84.95
93.26
135.45
57.71
50.53
80.52
144.71
102.39
99.63
97.65
93.16
98.74
91.25
125.65
100.00
Note: OECD countries are divided into three regions (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific) and international call destinations are assumed to be
distributed equally to each area. The output is expressed in the form of an index so that the OECD average becomes 100.
Source: OECD.
Internet Access Prices
For consumers, the most critical tariffs for engaging in electronic commerce are the prices of local communication access. For a user accessing the Internet via a dial-up service, the following basic charges apply – PSTN (the
fixed charge comprising the monthly line rental and local call charges) and the charges of an Internet Service
Provider (ISP). When the OECD commenced comparing Internet access prices in 1995, the charges of the ISPs
made up a larger proportion of the dial-up basket than the PSTN charges. Since that time, the price of Internet
access has fallen sharply due to fierce competition in this market. On the other hand, the price of local PSTN
access has risen in some countries due to tariff rebalancing and the absence of local competition. However, in
large part, the local access prices consumers pay to access the Internet are inherited from those in place for telephony. In 1998, on average, PSTN prices make up 65.1 per cent of the costs of accessing the Internet at peak rates
and 56.5 of the same cost at off-peak rates.
One of the reasons why some countries appear as relatively expensive in the OECD basket is that their
PTOs have a flat rate or unmeasured charge for local calls, irrespective of duration. This charging practice is
slightly unfavourable with a tariff model that assumes local call duration of 2.5 minutes at peak times and
3.5 minutes at off-peak times. In the world of plain old telephony, average local calls were in that order of duration. On the other hand, for comparisons of Internet access where the length of calls significantly increases,
those PTOs with unmeasured or flat rates rapidly shift to being the least expensive countries. In a number of
OECD countries the available indicators show that average call lengths are increasing. In Australia, Telstra
states that the average local call for a residential user now has a duration of six minutes.
In Australia, users pay a flat rate per local call irrespective of the length. In the United States, residential
users in large part have unmeasured local rates. Residential users in Canada and New Zealand have unmeasured local calls, while in Mexico users receive 100 local calls as part of the standard subscription. In Finland,
OECD 1999
175
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 7.11. Time series of international collection charges and traffic
Average one-minute collection rate for OECD countries
Peak rate
US$
1.60
Off-peak rate
US$
1.60
1.40
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0
1991
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Outgoing traffic from OECD countries via PSTN
North America
Europe
Asia-Pacific
Millions of minutes
70 000
Millions of minutes
70 000
60 000
60 000
50 000
50 000
40 000
40 000
30 000
30 000
20 000
20 000
10 000
10 000
0
1990
176
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.9.
OECD trends in collection charges
Average of peak one minute to OECD countries expressed in US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD Average
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1991-98
Exchange
rates
1991-98
Local
currency
1.38
1.23
1.13
1.37
0.80
0.99
1.14
1.00
1.36
1.54
1.43
1.44
2.19
1.26
..
1.01
1.66
0.93
1.39
1.77
1.06
1.17
2.74
0.89
1.34
1.34
1.37
1.20
1.10
1.29
0.74
0.93
1.13
0.97
1.18
1.52
1.30
1.36
2.36
1.04
..
0.99
1.54
0.72
1.37
1.73
1.04
1.14
2.11
0.79
1.33
1.26
1.30
1.28
1.12
1.22
0.82
0.69
1.02
0.97
0.97
1.35
1.37
1.37
2.51
0.97
..
0.97
1.36
0.71
1.56
1.57
1.08
1.00
2.35
0.78
1.33
1.24
1.12
1.18
0.76
1.00
0.77
0.63
0.88
0.91
0.81
1.09
0.79
0.87
2.85
0.96
2.96
0.92
1.38
0.58
1.25
1.25
0.80
0.90
1.78
0.66
1.40
1.06
1.25
0.94
0.77
0.94
0.69
0.63
0.81
0.93
0.78
1.25
0.81
0.77
2.77
0.81
2.78
0.89
1.48
0.55
1.14
1.03
0.70
0.94
1.28
0.59
1.42
1.01
1.26
1.06
0.88
0.96
0.62
0.68
0.89
0.65
0.81
1.11
0.84
0.69
2.16
0.80
1.95
0.78
1.64
0.49
0.97
1.08
0.66
0.79
0.83
0.61
1.57
0.95
1.32
1.01
0.80
0.96
0.73
0.67
0.70
0.70
0.73
0.97
0.69
0.76
2.18
0.81
1.65
0.87
1.64
0.57
0.86
0.81
0.57
0.86
0.97
0.50
1.66
0.93
1.25
0.52
0.68
0.94
0.60
0.61
0.37
0.60
0.61
0.79
0.64
0.69
1.96
0.53
1.58
0.39
1.58
0.52
0.72
0.63
0.49
0.73
1.00
0.52
1.45
0.78
–9.65%
–57.93%
–39.54%
–31.31%
–25.09%
–38.61%
–67.67%
–39.63%
–54.97%
–48.48%
–55.13%
–52.06%
–10.37%
–58.05%
..
–61.50%
–4.81%
–44.06%
–47.92%
–64.45%
–53.67%
–37.34%
–63.65%
–41.13%
8.24%
–41.44%
–5.06%
–54.86%
–35.31%
–18.48%
–20.03%
–16.68%
–65.35%
–35.23%
–22.33%
–37.35%
–51.05%
–31.85%
–25.11%
–55.11%
–58.75%
–14.17%
–36.78%
–35.89%
–48.94%
–40.23%
–34.59%
–36.11%
8.24%
–33.52%
Note: The average of a one minute tariff based on (1 initial minute + 3 additional minutes)/4. OECD average is a simple average. All calculations are in
current exchange rates, except for the last column.
Source: OECD.
the pricing structure varies between different providers of local telecommunication access services. Subscribers to HPY in Helsinki receive a flat rate for the first 30 minutes of a call during off-peak times. If they elect to
stay on line after 30 minutes, they pay a relatively inexpensive measured rate, although many prefer to log off
and reconnect to the network at 29 minutes. As a result of local call pricing these countries have among the lowest prices for a basket of local calls (Table 7.12).
Of the countries with measured local calls, which is the majority of OECD countries, users in Hungary, Iceland, Italy and Sweden enjoy the lowest PSTN charges for 20 hours of local access per month. During peak
times, HPY in Finland and Matav in Hungary have the least expensive measured local access in the OECD area.
Notwithstanding the fact that some countries have fairly low measured rates for local service in the context of
telephony, the differences increase significantly with longer periods of Internet access. Accordingly, there are
very large differences between what users in OECD countries pay for local calls to Internet service providers.
The average rate in the OECD area for 20 hours of local PSTN access to the Internet at peak times is US$43.40,
and at off-peak times US$29.98.
Recognising that tariff structures designed for telephony are not necessarily appropriate for dial-up services, some PTOs have begun to introduce discount schemes targeted at Internet access. The overall impact of
these schemes is to bring the average cost of 20 hours of local PSTN access down by around US$5 at peak times
and US$3 at off-peak times. However, there are still very large differences in the amounts paid by users
depending on the structure of local call prices.
The available discount schemes from incumbent PTOs, with measured or flat rate local calls, include:
– Australia: While Telstra has a flat rate for local calls, the company also had a range of volume discounts in
mid-1998. An automatic 5 per cent discount is applied once a user spends more than US$7.46 on local
OECD 1999
177
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.10. OECD basket of national and international business telephone charges, August 1998
Values express the average annual spending by a business user, excluding tax
Fixed charge
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Source:
Usage charge
Total charge
US$
PPP
US$
PPP
175.12
246.42
188.82
312.43
55.22
192.29
248.36
122.00
154.62
100.42
124.19
136.86
203.48
196.42
318.28
23.64
165.35
280.50
195.78
351.02
182.01
55.72
148.01
126.47
190.13
231.67
26.83
271.12
215.97
180.66
221.67
220.01
178.13
395.48
117.49
143.50
203.57
104.28
133.29
119.55
275.99
110.37
197.55
208.95
252.60
43.78
158.99
459.83
182.97
450.02
137.88
101.30
189.75
147.06
154.58
167.88
49.68
231.73
215.97
192.20
990.19
1 165.90
970.68
695.05
856.23
598.46
648.00
1 125.42
1 142.10
975.49
591.75
469.81
856.66
1 003.08
1 113.04
433.56
431.98
1 222.14
582.60
684.76
596.08
1 097.77
1 160.27
1 404.61
547.64
1 275.17
636.47
849.48
1 088.95
869.43
1 253.40
1 040.98
915.74
879.81
1 821.77
446.61
531.14
961.90
984.57
1 161.30
1 315.00
378.88
831.71
1 067.11
883.36
802.89
415.36
2 003.52
544.49
877.90
451.57
1995.94
1 487.52
1 633.27
445.24
924.04
1 178.64
726.06
1 088.95
1 001.68
US$
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
165.31
412.31
159.50
007.48
911.45
790.75
896.36
247.42
296.72
075.91
715.94
606.67
060.13
199.50
431.32
457.20
597.33
502.64
778.38
035.78
778.08
153.48
308.28
531.08
737.78
506.84
663.29
120.60
304.92
050.08
PPP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
475.07
260.99
093.87
275.29
939.26
590.11
734.72
066.17
117.86
280.84
590.99
489.25
029.26
276.06
135.97
846.68
574.35
463.35
727.46
327.92
589.46
097.24
677.28
780.32
599.82
091.92
228.32
957.78
304.92
193.88
OECD and Eurodata.
calls (i.e. more than 40 local calls per month). If the user makes more than 90 local calls, he can elect to
pay an additional US$2.50 and receive a 20 per cent discount. In addition, Telstra offers Australian pensioners a 40 per cent discount on the first ten local calls made each month. However, for the comparison
shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, these discounts do not reduce the cost to the user because
the basket only contains 20 local calls per month and because to qualify for the comparison the scheme
must be available to all customers. Notwithstanding these exclusions, Telstra has the third lowest
charges for a basket of calls for accessing the Internet in the OECD area.
– Austria: In November 1997, the PTA started offering a special tariff for calls to numbers assigned to ISPs.
Dial-up users have the option to pay four fixed fees for which they receive different levels of discount
on local calls. The fixed fees start at US$12.17, increasing to US$34.46 for the option aimed at business
users. The tariffs vary depending on the time of day and the customer must be within 50 kilometres of
the dial-in-point. ISPs pay an initial fee of US$71 and US$214 per month for a number, and must agree
not to use these for voice telephony. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this
reduces the cost to the user from US$101.94 to US$78.75 (peak rate) and from US$58.99 to US$42.68
(off-peak rate).
– Belgium: Belgacom offers a 50 per cent reduction on the price of off-peak local calls with durations longer
than ten minutes. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost
to the user from US$30.96 to US$24.53 (off-peak).
178
– Denmark: TeleDanmark’s “InternetFavorit” scheme enables users to call a special access number for the
Internet during peak and off-peak times at reduced rates. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for
20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$48.71 to US$47.18 (peak rate) and US$30.76
to US$24.87 (off-peak rate).
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.11. OECD basket of national and international residential telephone charges, August 1998
Values express the average annual spending by a residential user, including tax
Fixed charge
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Source:
Usage charge
Total charge
US$
PPP
US$
PPP
US$
PPP
98.71
203.53
228.47
170.53
57.98
240.36
303.00
147.14
179.35
118.49
92.87
81.51
246.21
161.05
254.50
26.01
190.16
184.77
230.04
217.08
223.87
67.97
173.17
146.71
178.71
246.73
30.85
215.55
90.20
165.71
124.95
181.73
215.54
215.86
123.36
179.37
248.36
125.76
154.62
141.06
206.37
65.74
239.03
171.33
201.98
48.16
182.84
302.90
214.99
278.31
169.60
123.59
222.01
170.59
145.29
178.79
57.13
184.23
90.20
171.16
279.33
379.88
305.18
121.86
230.72
205.58
251.40
370.27
346.22
360.26
190.87
162.70
229.74
296.62
322.50
126.41
271.63
368.75
196.81
137.57
223.72
375.07
382.83
467.60
204.42
414.96
179.07
252.18
301.85
274.35
353.59
339.18
287.91
154.25
490.90
153.42
206.07
316.47
298.47
428.88
424.15
131.21
223.05
315.55
255.95
234.09
261.19
604.51
183.94
176.37
169.48
681.94
490.80
543.72
166.20
300.70
331.61
215.54
301.85
311.76
378.04
583.41
533.65
292.39
288.70
445.94
554.40
517.41
525.58
478.75
283.73
244.21
475.95
457.67
577.00
152.42
461.79
553.52
426.85
354.65
447.59
443.04
555.99
614.30
383.14
661.69
209.92
467.74
392.05
440.05
478.54
520.90
503.45
370.12
614.26
332.79
454.43
442.23
453.08
569.94
630.52
196.95
462.08
486.88
457.94
282.25
444.03
907.41
398.93
454.68
339.08
805.53
712.81
714.30
311.49
479.49
388.74
399.77
392.05
482.92
OECD and Eurodata.
– Finland: Traditionally, HPY offered flat rate tariffs for calls during off-peak times for US$0.07. In
November 1997, this structure was amended so that users receive 30 minutes for US$0.07, after which a
measured rate of US$0.009 per minute is charged. This structure encourages some users to log off after
29 minutes, although the savings are modest because of the inexpensive measured rate. By logging off
and on at 29 minutes, users save US$4.01 over the course of 20 hours of service per month. The main
benefit for users is that the new pricing structure has encouraged ISPs, including HPY, to favour inexpensive flat rate pricing for Internet access. Before the off-peak call was restructured, ISPs generally charged
higher flat rates (or measured pricing) because some users would stay on line even if they were not using
the service.
– France: France Telecom offers a 50 per cent reduction for calls to ISPs between 22:00 hrs and 8:00 hrs. This
discount is not applied here because the OECD’s off-peak comparison is for 20:00 hrs. Instead, the
“Primaliste” discount plan is applied, where for the payment of US$1.54 per month a user receives a
20 per cent discount. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the
cost to the user from US$69.42 to US$58.99 (peak rate) and from US$39.69 to US$35.22 (off-peak rate).
– Germany: Under its “City Plus” tariff plan, Deutsche Telekom offers a discount of five nominated numbers
for a one-off payment of US$4.46. For users this means that calls can be up to 50 per cent less expensive
during peak-rate times and around 17 per cent less expensive for calls in the evening before 21:00 hrs.
For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, this reduces the cost to the user from US$58.80 to US$36.22
(peak). At off-peak times the discount reduces the cost of the basket from US$40.08 to US$36.22.
– Greece: OTE offers a discount between 23:00 hrs and 8:00 hrs. During this time it is possible to call from
anywhere in Greece to access the Internet with the standard length of units extended to ten minutes for
US$0.06. However, for the comparison in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this does not reduce the cost
to the user because the comparison uses prices available at 20:00 hrs to represent off-peak pricing.
OECD 1999
179
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.12. Monthly basket of local PSTN residential charges, May 1998
In US$ PPP
Peak
Off-peak
Peak
20 hours per month
with PSTN discount plan
where available
20 hours per month1
Mexico
Turkey
Australia
Finland
Hungary2
Iceland
Canada
Korea
United States
Italy
New Zealand
Japan
Sweden
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
OECD
Portugal
United Kingdom
Spain
Greece
Ireland
Luxembourg
France
Germany
Czech Republic2
Austria
Poland2
Switzerland
9.30
34.54
11.36
21.31
13.59
25.28
15.73
26.52
19.92
40.26
21.35
29.60
37.78
75.63
48.71
41.07
49.22
43.40
46.37
74.53
31.64
33.19
92.29
54.96
69.42
58.80
68.82
101.94
50.72
54.62
9.30
21.79
11.36
12.70
13.59
14.71
15.73
26.52
19.92
27.00
21.35
29.60
24.37
30.96
30.76
28.86
31.33
29.98
46.37
37.86
31.64
33.19
33.97
34.87
39.69
40.08
37.66
58.99
50.72
54.62
Off-peak
9.30
16.52
11.36
21.31
13.59
25.28
15.73
17.30
19.92
27.24
21.35
21.41
33.96
75.63
47.18
41.07
49.22
37.87
44.14
55.18
31.64
33.19
63.56
54.96
58.99
36.22
68.82
78.75
50.72
54.62
9.30
10.04
11.36
12.70
13.59
14.71
15.73
17.30
19.92
20.62
21.35
21.41
22.56
24.53
24.87
26.53
26.67
26.36
29.06
31.34
31.64
33.19
33.97
34.87
35.22
36.22
37.66
42.68
50.72
54.62
1.
Monthly basket includes the monthly line rental and 20 local calls each of one hour duration, including VAT. The basket does not include PSTN connection
fees. Off-peak is represented by the price at 20:00 during weekdays. No long-distance charges are included.
2.
Data for the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are from August 1998.
Source: OECD.
– Hungary: During the period from 22:00 hrs to 5:00 hrs, a consumer on MATAV’s network pays only for the
first 53 minutes of each call. However, for the comparison in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this does
not reduce the cost to a user because the comparison uses prices available at 20:00 hrs to represent
off-peak.
– Ireland: From July 1998 the cost of accessing the Internet during the day (8:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs) via telephone was reduced, on average, by 30 per cent. Under this structure calls to the Internet, using a common access number, were charged in five minute intervals instead of three. For the comparison in
Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to a user from US$92.29 to US$63.56 (peak rate).
In November 1998, Telecom Eireann announced a further cut to peak-rate Internet access, of 33 per cent,
by extending the unit of measurement from five minutes to 7.5 minutes. As the company introduced the
new scheme on 1 January 1999, it is not included in Table 7.12. In addition, Telecom Eireann announced
a proposed flat rate option for a fixed volume of Internet access, to be introduced in 1999.
180
– Italy: Telecom Italia offers users a 50 per cent reduction on the price of calls to one designated number
(e.g. an ISP) for a one-time payment of US$6.09 and monthly payment of US$1.52. For the comparison
shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to a user from US$40.26 to US$27.24
(peak rate) and from US$27.00 to US$20.62 (off-peak rate).
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
– Japan: NTT offers unlimited calls to two numbers for US$10.65 per month between 23:00 hrs and 8:00 hrs.
This discount is not applied here because the OECD’s off-peak comparison is for 20:00 hrs. Instead,
NTT’s “Time Plus” plan is used whereby a user pays US$1.18 per month and the standard unit of measurement is extended from three to five minutes. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours
of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$29.60 to US$21.41 (peak rate/off-peak rate).
– Korea: For Internet access users, local telephone calls are provided at 40 per cent off the standard price,
and an additional 30 per cent discount is offered for late-night use. Dial-up users who use more than
30 hours per month may select one among four options from KT which provide discounts of between
7 and 15 per cent discounts based on the time of day. KT also offers unlimited access for US$14.96 per
month between 23.00 hrs and 8.00 hrs, or a user can have unlimited access between 21.00 hrs and
8.00 hrs during work days and 24-hour use during holidays for US$29.92. For the comparison shown in
Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$26.52 to US$17.30 (peak rate/
off-peak rate).
– Netherlands: KPN Telecom offers a discount on local calls under its “BelPlus” plan. For a payment of
US$2.90 per month, the user receives a 17 per cent discount on off-peak local calls. For the comparison
shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$31.33 to US$26.67
(off-peak). On 1 January 1999, KPN introduced a 33 per cent reduction on the price of local calls made
on Sundays.
– Norway: Telenor offers a 20 per cent reduction under its “Family and Friends” discount plan for the payment of US$1.03 per month. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces
the cost for users at off-peak times from US$28.86 to US$26.53.
– Portugal: Portugal Telecom has extended the off-peak time for calls to the access numbers of ISPs. While
the standard off-peak rate for telephony begins at 21:00 hrs, the Internet off-peak rate begins at
18:00 hrs. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to a user
from US$46.37 to US$29.06 (off-peak rate). The peak rate is also slightly reduced because of the absence
of the standard call set-up fee.
– Spain: In September 1998, Telefonica proposed a range of new discount schemes aimed at local calls to
access the Internet. The “BonoNet” plan is based upon users purchasing in advance a set number
of hours (10, 30 or 100) of local call time to a single number. Users would pay a start-up fee (US$1.02 for
10 hours, US$1.71 for 30 hours, US$3.42 for 100 hours) and would buy blocks of time which must be used
within 30 days of purchase (US$10.93 for 10 hours, US$27.32 for 30 hours, US$88.80 for 100 hours). The
“BonoNet” hours can only be used between 20:00 hrs and 8:00 hrs and at weekends. The proposed plan
would not affect the cost of the peak-rate local call prices shown in Table 7.12, as the discount is not
available at the nominal peak-rate time of 11:00 hrs. If implemented as proposed, the “BonoNet” option
would reduce the off-peak price from US$31.64 to US$26.96.
– Sweden: Telia’s “Internet Bonus” scheme gives customers a 15 per cent discount on peak and off-peak
calls to the Internet on payment of US$0.34 per month. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for
20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$37.78 to US$33.96 (peak rate) and from
US$24.37 to US$22.56 (off-peak rate).
– Turkey: Turk Telekom is applying a special reduced tariff for calls to ISPs. This special rate is not discriminatory and is available to the customers of all ISPs. There are special service numbers dedicated for
Internet access. These numbers are priced at the same rate, independent of distance, across the whole
country. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours of service, this reduces the cost to a user
from US$34.54 to US$16.52 (peak rate) and from US$21.79 to US$10.04 (off-peak rate).
– United Kingdom: In mid-1998, BT had no special discount plan aimed at Internet users, although a combination of the “Friends and Family” and “Premier Line” discount plans enabled a 35 per cent reduction
on call charges for a payment of US$3.00 per month. For the comparison shown in Table 7.12, for 20 hours
of service, this reduces the cost to the user from US$74.53 to US$55.18 (peak rate) and from US$37.86 to
US$31.34 (off-peak rate). BT’s least expensive off-peak rate is at weekends, whereas this comparison
uses off-peak rates applicable at 20:00 hrs during the week. In the United Kingdom the interconnection
charges between operators, included in local call charges, have encouraged a number of “free” Internet
access services. A user of these services would only pay the local call fee on the PSTN to access the
Internet.
OECD 1999
181
Communications Outlook 1999
Before beginning to analyse the impact of local PSTN access charges on the final prices paid by consumers,
and the policy implications raised, it is necessary to look at Internet access charges. Payment of PSTN charges
is only part, although in most countries it is the largest part, of the cost for consumers of accessing the Internet.
In past comparisons of Internet charges, the OECD has used the least expensive ISP price. Initially, the main
reason for using the prices of ISPs rather than PTOs (acting as ISPs) was that virtually no PTOs offered dial-up
service. The second reason for looking at ISP prices was to see if they were higher in countries where ISPs faced
monopoly power from PTOs when purchasing leased lines. The main problem with comparing the least expensive ISP prices was whether the quality of service was comparable between these ISPs.
For this edition of the Communications Outlook, the OECD decided to compare the Internet access prices of
the largest PTO in each country. The main reasons for this are:
– With the exception of TPSA in Poland, all the incumbent PTOs provided a full dial-up Internet service
by 1998 and in many cases have become, or are rapidly on the way to becoming, the largest providers
of Internet access service in OECD countries.
– PTOs have the greatest geographical reach in each country in terms of their network, whereas the offers
of many ISPs are for a particular city or region. In terms of policy, any difference between the pricing and
availability of service in different areas from PTOs may become an important issue in some countries in
terms of universal service.
– Given that PTOs generally set local PSTN prices, with notable exceptions such as AT&T, it is interesting
to examine their Internet access pricing in terms of the inherited local pricing structure.
– Some ISPs have alleged that PTOs are pricing Internet access in an anti-competitive manner in some
countries and cross subsidising these services from PSTN revenue. In this context, it is useful for regulatory authorities to have international benchmarks available since local ISP prices will be influenced by
PTO prices.
– It seems reasonable to compare the Internet access prices of the largest PTOs in terms of potential quality of service levels.
Internet access prices for the largest PTOs for different lengths of online time are shown in Table 7.13
(expressed in purchasing power parities) and Table 7.14 (expressed in exchange rates). These prices compare
Internet access costs and exclude any local PSTN access charges. For all PTOs the best scheme available for the
time period specified was chosen. The first column shows a comparison for three hours of service per month.
This amount of online time, for example, might suit a consumer wanting to access and download the contents
of an e-mail account. For this amount of time those PTOs offering measured access, or a small number of hours
before measured access commences, are among the least expensive, such as Telecom New Zealand. For those
PTOs with one flat rate for unlimited Internet access, a comparison for a low-usage levels makes them relatively
expensive. On the other hand, the majority of Internet users would stay on line for longer periods of time, which
is when the benefits of flat rate service become increasingly evident.
182
For 20 hours of Internet access per month, PTOs in Denmark, Finland and Norway offer the least expensive
service, with prices below US$10 per month. As pricing in these countries is based on unlimited access, this
holds true for a comparison of Internet access prices at 30 hours and beyond. Only a small number of PTOs do
not offer the option of unlimited Internet dial-up access, such as Deutsche Telekom, NTT, and Telecom
New Zealand (Portugal Telecom has a flat rate up to 30 hours). This can make these PTOs an expensive proposition for users compared to other ISPs with flat rate pricing where it is available in these countries. Significantly,
users of Deutsche Telecom and Portugal Telecom pay measured rates for both local calls and Internet access
beyond certain lengths of time. In Japan, NTT provide choices for flat rate service of up to four hours, up to
15 hours and up to 50 hours. On the other hand, only in Australia, Canada and the United States do users have
the opportunity to have unmeasured or flat rate local PSTN access and unmeasured Internet access from a PTO.
Even in these countries, in 1998, Telstra, Bell Canada and AT&T have defined a limit of 150 hours per month for
their Internet access accounts. Users of AT&T, Bell Canada’s and Telstra’s Internet access services pay an hourly
rate if they exceed 150 hours. In addition, Telstra’s BigPond Internet service has a policy of disconnecting users
if the network they are accessing has been inactive for 20 minutes or in continuous use for five hours. Accordingly, it was not possible in mid-1998 to obtain unmeasured Internet access service (i.e. PSTN and ISP charge)
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.13. PTO monthly Internet access charges, July 1998
In US$ PPPs
Number of hours of Internet access per month
ISP
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Telstra (Big Pond)
Post and Telekom A-Online
Belgacom
Bell Canada (Sympatico)
SPT
TeleDanmark
HPY
France Telecom
T-Online
OTEnet
Matav
P&T
Telecom Eireann
Telecom Italia (TIN)
NTT (OCN)
Korea Telecom (Kornet)
P&T
Telmex Internet Directo
KPN (World Access)
Telecom NZ (XTRA)
Telenor (Nextel)
TPSA
Telecom Portugal Netline
Telefonica (Teleline)
Telia
Swisscom (Blue Window/IP Plus)
Turk Telekom
BT
AT&T
3 hours
20 hours
30 hours
Unlimited1
7.09
12.19
15.54
7.98
36.94
6.86
7.07
6.18
8.15
26.97
9.88
8.03
16.60
9.09
5.59
30.48
18.10
40.62
5.85
5.33
8.83
0.00
17.06
10.45
4.68
12.36
27.78
6.47
9.95
25.08
21.34
22.06
15.20
36.94
6.86
7.07
13.06
32.21
26.97
49.42
16.59
16.60
15.03
30.24
30.48
18.10
40.62
13.56
24.89
8.83
0.00
17.06
10.45
14.04
12.36
27.78
14.83
19.85
35.82
21.34
22.06
15.20
36.94
6.86
7.07
13.06
46.98
26.97
49.42
16.59
16.60
15.03
59.34
30.48
18.10
40.62
13.56
32.00
8.83
0.00
17.06
10.45
14.04
12.36
27.78
14.83
19.95
31.52
21.34
22.06
20.01
36.94
6.86
7.07
13.06
..
26.97
49.42
16.59
16.60
15.03
..
30.48
18.10
40.62
13.56
..
8.83
0.00
..
10.45
14.04
49.45
27.78
14.83
19.95
13.65
20.98
23.19
22.15
Note: Unlimited service is not offered by the PTO in Germany, Japan, New Zealand or Portugal. OECD average for unlimited service does not include these
countries. VAT is included.
1.
For Australia, Canada and the United States unlimited service is taken to be 150 hours per month.
2.
TPSA’s service is a limited read-only service. Full Internet access service was not offered in mid-1998.
Source: OECD.
from the incumbent PTO in any OECD country. Having said that, it is certainly possible to get unlimited access
by having a different PSTN and ISP access provider and 150 hour caps are largely designed to discourage permanent dial-up connections. In Tables 7.13 and 7.14 a limit of 150 hours is taken to be the equivalent of unlimited service.
The most important price, for the dial-up user, is the combined PSTN and Internet access prices at peak
and off-peak rates (Tables 7.15 and 7.16). For both these baskets, the only countries with a price of less than
US$40 at peak rates are Australia, Canada, Finland and the United States. At off-peak rates these countries are
joined by Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Turkey. HPY’s pricing is clearly the least expensive in
the OECD area. In fact, HPY’s pricing of ISDN is such that it is less expensive than standard local telephone service in every country, except Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Italy at off-peak times. For ISDN access to 20 hours
of Internet service, HPY’s basket is US$35.62 at off-peak rates and US$45.23 at peak rates. Inexpensive access
in Finland is the main reason why Internet penetration in Finland leads the OECD.
While the discount schemes introduced by PTOs have brought the cost of local access down in some countries, it is also true that very large differences exist across the OECD area for the same service. Moreover, some
of the discount plans do not seem to be targeted in a consumer friendly way for electronic commerce or for
other areas for which information infrastructure holds great promise. For example, making discounts available
very late at night or early in the morning may be useful for some Internet users, but it will not encourage the
OECD 1999
183
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.14. PTO monthly Internet access charges, July 1998
In US$
Number of hours of Internet access per month
ISP
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Telstra (Big Pond)
Post and Telekom A-Online
Belgacom
Bell Canada (Sympatico)
SPT
TeleDanmark
HPY
France Telecom
T-Online
OTEnet
Matav
P&T
Telecom Eireann
Telecom Italia (TIN)
NTT (OCN)
Korea Telecom (Kornet)
P&T
Telmex Internet Directo
KPN (World Access)
Telecom NZ (XTRA)
Telenor (Nextel)
TPSA
Telecom Portugal Netline
Telefonica (Teleline)
Telia
Swisscom (Blue Window/IP Plus)
Turk Telekom
BT
AT&T
3 hours
20 hours
30 hours
Unlimited
5.60
13.65
16.47
6.30
17.36
9.19
8.62
7.24
9.37
22.65
4.45
9.95
17.10
8.54
7.05
16.46
18.83
24.78
6.26
4.16
11.66
0.00
13.31
8.99
5.76
17.06
15.00
7.57
9.95
19.81
23.91
23.39
12.00
17.36
9.19
8.62
15.27
37.05
22.65
22.24
20.58
17.10
14.13
38.10
16.46
18.83
24.78
14.51
19.41
11.66
0.00
13.31
8.99
17.27
17.06
15.00
17.35
19.85
28.30
23.91
23.39
12.00
17.36
9.19
8.62
15.27
54.03
22.65
22.24
20.58
17.10
14.13
74.77
16.46
18.83
24.78
14.51
24.96
11.66
0.00
13.31
8.99
17.27
17.06
15.00
17.35
19.95
24.90
23.91
23.39
15.81
17.36
9.19
8.62
15.27
..
22.65
22.24
20.58
17.10
14.13
..
16.46
18.83
24.78
14.51
..
11.66
0.00
..
8.99
17.27
68.25
15.00
17.35
19.95
11.55
18.42
20.85
19.51
Note: Unlimited service is not offered by the PTO in Germany, Japan, New Zealand or Portugal. OECD average for unlimited service does not include these
countries. VAT is included.
1.
TPSA’s service is a limited read-only service. Full Internet access service was not offered in mid-1998.
Source: OECD.
development of online shopping by ordinary consumers, consultation with online professionals during regular
office hours nor will it encourage children to access the Internet after school hours. The high cost of Internet
access will clearly act as a barrier to electronic commerce and it is increasingly evident that those countries with
low basket prices, particularly at off-peak times, are leading in the development of Internet access.
One more caveat needs to be noted. The OECD comparisons are based on users having access to an ISP
at the price of a local call from the largest PTO in the largest city. This reflects the situation for most users but
it is not uniformly the case in all OECD countries. For some users in rural areas, there are no points of presence
for ISPs within their local calling area. In a growing number of countries this issue has been handled by the PTO
making available a national number which is charged at the same rate as a local call, or by ISPs using virtual
points of presence (sometimes in association with new PSTN infrastructure providers). This is the case in countries such as France and the United Kingdom. In other countries, some users in rural areas are still heavily disadvantaged compared to urban users in terms of access to the Internet if there is no point of presence in their
local calling area.
184
The other important development for Internet access pricing is the emergence of local infrastructure competition. The main importance lies in the potential for competition to encourage innovative pricing more
suitable for electronic commerce. This is most evident in the United Kingdom, the OECD country with the longest experience with local infrastructure competition. By way of example, it is worth highlighting the pricing from
a cable communications company in the United Kingdom. Telewest, in addition to supplying cable television
services, provides more than one million access lines for business and residential customers in competition
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.15. Peak rate Internet access basket, 19981
In US$ PPP
PSTN charge
(discounted peak rate)
Finland
Canada
Australia
United States
Iceland
Spain
Italy
Turkey
New Zealand
Korea
Sweden
Norway
Mexico
Poland2, 3
Japan
Denmark
OECD
Greece
Portugal
Netherlands
Hungary2
Switzerland
Germany
United Kingdom
France
Luxembourg
Ireland
Belgium
Austria
Czech Republic2
21.31
15.73
11.36
19.92
25.28
31.64
27.24
16.52
21.35
17.30
33.96
41.07
9.30
50.72
21.41
47.18
37.87
33.19
44.14
49.22
13.59
54.62
36.22
55.18
58.99
54.96
63.56
75.63
78.75
68.82
20 hours online per month
ISP charge
Total basket
7.07
15.20
25.08
19.85
16.59
10.45
15.03
27.78
24.89
30.48
14.04
8.83
40.62
0.00
30.24
6.86
20.26
26.97
17.06
13.56
49.42
12.36
32.21
14.83
13.06
18.10
16.60
22.06
21.34
36.94
28.38
30.92
36.43
39.77
41.88
42.09
42.27
44.30
46.23
47.78
48.01
49.90
49.92
50.72
51.65
54.04
58.13
60.15
61.20
62.79
63.01
66.99
68.44
70.01
72.05
73.06
80.16
97.70
100.10
105.77
PSTN charge
as % of total basket
75.1
50.9
31.2
50.1
60.4
75.2
64.4
37.3
46.2
36.2
70.7
82.3
18.6
100.0
41.5
87.3
65.1
55.2
72.1
78.4
21.6
81.5
52.9
78.8
81.9
75.2
79.3
77.4
78.7
65.1
1.
Includes VAT. PSTN charge is from May 1998, and IAP charge is from July 1998. PSTN charge includes 20 one-hour calls and monthly rental fees. No
connection charges are included.
2.
Data for Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are from August 1998.
3.
TPSA’s Internet service is a limited read-only service. Full Internet access service was not offered in mid-1998.
Source: OECD.
with BT. For Internet users the company offers unmeasured local calls, at off-peak times, for the payment of an
additional fixed charge of US$8.17 per month. Telewest also offers a discount on the monthly rental of a second
line (US$6.43 instead of US$13.08). Including PSTN and Internet charges, a Telewest customer can access the
Internet for 20 hours at off-peak times for US$38.20 (first line) or US$31.34 (second line). The first price means
that consumers in Telewest’s service area join those in the least expensive countries, accessing the Internet at
off-peak times for less than US$40 per month. In terms of the pricing of second-line access to the Internet, only
users in Finland have lower prices.
The pricing of PTOs’ Internet access services is generally a reasonable guide to ISP pricing in OECD countries. The greatest exception is once more the United Kingdom, where Dixons, a leading retailer of electronic
equipment, provides free Internet access. A user of Freeserve, Dixons’ Internet access service, introduced in
September 1998, pays only for local PSTN calls (Table 7.16). There is no registration or monthly access fee, but
users need to log on once per month to maintain their registration. In return, they have unlimited access to the
Internet, an unlimited number of e-mail addresses and 5 MB of space for a personal home page. The backbone
connection for Freeserve is provided by Energis, which was reported to carry 40 per cent of Internet traffic in
the United Kingdom in 1998. Freeserve, if successful, will place a great deal of pressure on ISP pricing in the
United Kingdom and elsewhere if the model is replicated in other OECD countries. For PTOs such a trend could
stimulate a very large increase in revenue from local calls, and for services such as ISDN if users devote savings
to purchasing higher access speed. In the months following the launch of the Dixons’ service, over one million
users signed on quickly, making it the largest ISP in the United Kingdom. In February 1999, BT announced a free
Internet access service with users only paying local PSTN charges. This means a consumer who accesses BT’s
service would pay the amount shown for Dixon’s in Table 7.16.
OECD 1999
185
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.16. Off-peak rate Internet access basket, 19981
In US$ PPP
PSTN charge
(discounted off-peak rate)
Finland
Canada
Iceland
Denmark
Norway
Italy
Australia
Sweden
Turkey
United States
Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Belgium
OECD4
Korea
France
Mexico
Ireland
Poland2, 3
Japan
Luxembourg
Greece
Hungary2
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
Czech Republic2
Telewest, UK (1st Line)
Telewest, UK (2nd Line)
Dixons (BT PSTN)
Dixons (Telewest PSTN)
12.70
15.73
14.71
24.87
26.53
20.62
11.36
22.56
10.04
19.92
26.67
31.64
29.06
31.34
21.35
24.53
26.36
17.30
35.22
9.30
33.97
50.72
21.41
34.87
33.19
13.59
42.68
54.62
36.22
37.66
21.87
15.01
31.34
21.87
20 hours online per month
ISP charge
Total basket
7.07
15.20
16.59
6.86
8.83
15.03
25.08
14.04
27.78
19.85
13.56
10.45
17.06
14.83
24.89
22.06
20.26
30.48
13.06
40.62
16.60
0.00
30.24
18.10
26.97
49.42
21.34
12.36
32.21
36.94
16.33
16.33
0.00
0.00
19.77
30.92
31.31
31.73
35.36
35.64
36.43
36.60
37.82
39.77
40.23
42.09
46.12
46.17
46.23
46.59
46.62
47.78
48.27
49.92
50.57
50.72
51.65
52.98
60.15
63.01
64.03
66.99
68.44
74.60
38.20
31.34
31.34
21.87
PSTN charge
as % of total basket
64.2
50.9
47.0
78.4
75.0
57.8
31.2
61.6
26.6
50.1
66.3
75.2
63.0
67.9
46.2
52.6
56.5
36.2
73.0
18.6
67.2
100.0
41.5
65.8
55.2
21.6
66.7
81.5
52.9
50.5
57.3
47.9
100.0
100.0
1.
Includes VAT. PSTN charge is from May 1998, and IAP charge is from July 1998. PSTN charge includes 20 one-hour calls at 20:00 on weekdays and monthly
rental fees. No connection charges are included.
2.
Data for the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are from August 1998.
3.
TPSA’s Internet service is a limited read-only service. Full Internet access service was not offered in mid-1998.
4.
OECD average does not include Telewest or Dixons.
Source: OECD.
Leased Lines
Leased lines provide an important service for telecommunication users. They allow users needing to transport high volumes of traffic to take advantage of lower prices than those offered by the PSTN pricing system
and to have control over their own telecommunication facilities and traffic. Leased lines are also used by some
companies to provide value-added services, often in competition with PTOs. ISPs use leased lines to build
backbone networks for the Internet and large customers use them to access ISP facilities.
The trend for standard leased line tariffs in OECD countries is shown in Table 7.17. Prices for medium(54/64 kbit/s) and high-speed leased circuits (1.5/2 Mbit/s) declined respectively by 42 and 34 per cent
between 1992 and 1998. The average price for voice level service (M.1020) was much the same in 1998 as
in 1992. PTOs have been encouraging customers to shift from low-speed circuits to higher-speed circuits
by providing relatively small tariff reductions or even by increasing the price for M.1020 service.
186
Table 7.18 shows data for the OECD basket for leased line service for August 1998. The countries with the
lowest pricing are in Scandinavia, and include particularly those countries with several years of competitive
markets, such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden. This situation is, no doubt, assisting these countries to expand
Internet access much faster than other countries. In terms of Finland’s outstanding success in expanding
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Figure 7.12. Off-peak rate Internet access basket, 1998, in US$ PPP
US$ PPP
80
PSTN charge (discounted off-peak rate)
ISP charge
US$ PPP
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
n
d m
a nd
y
y
n
s
e
d
ly
s
a
d
al
d
D
y
rk
ry
o
rg ce
m
in
ia
nd
lic
ia
lan nad ela ma rwa Ita stral wede urke State rland Spa ortug gdo ealan elgiu OEC Kore ranc exic relan olan Japa bou ree unga ustr erla rman pub
T d
G H
F
P
I
A itz Ge
M
Fin Ca Ic Den No
P
B
S
em
Re
Kin w Z
Au
x
e ethe
w
t
h
d
i
u
S
L
N
ec
ite
Ne
Un
Cz
Un
Source: OECD.
Internet infrastructure, as indicated by Internet host surveys, the combination of the lowest leased line prices
for business users, and among the least expensive dial-up prices for consumers, must be considered as a fundamental contribution.
This edition of the Communications Outlook includes, for the first time, a comparison of international leased
line prices (Table 7.19). As with the national leased line basket, the Scandinavian countries, along with the
Netherlands, have among the lowest prices. Countries with fewer near neighbours tend to be more expensive
in such comparisons. This emphasizes the need for these countries to reduce prices to reduce the impact of
distance-sensitive pricing. A combined basket of national and international leased lines is also available for
the first time (Table 7.20).
Many operators in the past had a strategy to maintain business customers on the PSTN or on public data
networks. The relatively large gap in prices between public networks and leased circuits was aimed at providing a disincentive to business to use leased circuits. A comparison of public network data pricing is found in
Table 7.21. Most analysts expect much of the market for public network data to shift to the Internet and intranets as the quality of service offered by ISPs, in terms of security, reliability, and so forth, improves. For their
part, PTOs are using their public data networks to also provide Internet services.
The other important trend in domestic leased line pricing is rebalancing by distance. As the number of
countries with liberalised telecommunication markets has grown, the price of leased lines over longer distances has decreased. By way of contrast, the price of short-distance leased lines, as represented by the price
of a leased line at two kilometres, has either increased (54/64 kbit/s) or is at much the same price as in 1990.
The main reason for this is that PTOs face greater competition in the long-distance leased line market than over
short distances. For example, in liberal markets there is much greater choice for business users between cities
than for local leased lines. One of the main impacts of this trend is to make electronic commerce more expensive for content service and providers. This is because business users rely on short-distance leased lines to
connect to their Internet service provider.
OECD 1999
187
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.17. Time series of leased line tariffs for OECD countries
Index, 1992 = 100
Simple average of index
M.1020
54/64 kbit/s
1.5/2 Mbit/s
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
100.00
100.00
100.00
105.53
104.81
104.26
120.86
85.33
93.19
131.33
77.99
86.83
108.26
75.27
78.23
105.65
69.29
75.82
101.04
58.66
65.67
1.
For leased line tariffs the data listed below are not calculated in this time series: For M.1020 – Mexico (2), Portugal (4), Sweden (1). For 54/64 kbit/s –
Australia (2), Iceland (2), Mexico (2), Sweden (1). For 1.5/2 Mbit/s – Finland (3), Mexico (2), Spain (3), Sweden (3). The reasons are: (1) Tariff system change.
(2) Data discrepancy during the period. (3) Data unavailability. (4) No service.
2.
All figures are simple OECD averages of the index. Data are calculated using PPPs and excluding tax.
Source: OECD.
Table 7.18. OECD basket of national leased line charges, August 1998
In US$ based on PPPs, excluding tax
M.1020
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
316
459
470
251
524
113
177
488
407
331
225
181
443
418
487
638
190
301
204
392
265
372
658
1 180
72
489
166
312
264
372
824
374
346
157
102
436
062
273
536
290
893
800
067
619
911
608
699
000
161
086
007
598
032
409
593
588
302
829
384
586
Index
85
123
126
67
141
30
48
131
109
89
61
49
119
112
131
171
51
81
55
105
71
100
177
317
19
131
45
84
71
100
64 kbit/s
484
496
443
254
1 309
184
212
434
516
963
654
403
525
784
638
1 277
321
608
462
863
368
493
784
644
255
383
748
430
690
573
261
570
738
414
754
750
857
047
929
333
111
949
123
182
581
217
784
973
498
890
513
988
701
159
891
321
360
676
579
833
Index
84
87
77
44
228
32
37
76
90
168
114
70
92
137
111
223
56
106
81
151
64
86
137
112
45
67
130
75
120
100
1.5/2.0Mbit/s
3
3
3
1
13
1
2
3
3
6
2
3
6
4
8
3
4
2
4
1
4
5
4
1
2
3
1
1
3
499
127
092
630
097
150
885
151
149
679
541
053
560
698
211
514
217
567
679
044
955
995
015
795
040
740
326
856
211
741
447
792
490
322
557
466
472
872
203
673
109
980
975
179
041
777
845
135
660
496
636
782
654
552
863
845
046
809
600
113
Index
94
84
83
44
350
31
24
58
84
98
175
55
95
179
113
228
86
122
72
108
52
134
134
128
28
73
89
50
32
100
1.
OECD basket of leased line is the price of the rental charge of 100 leased line distributed to the different distances.
Source: OECD, Eurodata.
Cellular Mobile Communication
188
There are an extraordinary variety of tariff schemes available for mobile communication. Most schemes
relate fixed charges to usage charge, so that a higher payment in one entitles a user to reduced charges in the
other. The popularity of such schemes has been the primary factor in shifting the mobile communication market
from a service for business users to a mass consumer market. This means, to a greater extent than on the fixed
network, that what users pay depends very much on their usage patterns. For someone wanting to make a large
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
Table 7.19. Basket of national and international leased line charges, August 1998
In US$ based on PPPs, excluding tax
M.1020
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Source:
1
1
1
2
1
1
..
736 953
757 679
..
772 320
310 848
367 958
802 418
778 756
842 135
010 900
581 533
..
939 559
332 427
085 127
385 423
..
378 429
..
389 380
863 015
260 639
596 747
273 028
773 487
932 601
739 604
..
865 694
Index
..
85
88
..
205
36
43
93
90
97
117
67
..
109
154
241
45
..
44
..
45
100
146
184
32
89
108
85
..
100
64 kbit/s
1 786
791
708
610
3 564
374
477
841
1 666
1 747
854
891
1 563
1 537
2 939
723
702
496
1 486
1 501
1 208
456
677
1 482
928
1 565
1 214
686
262
131
471
180
667
506
159
..
160
223
983
294
798
158
934
989
..
086
..
859
909
162
588
696
371
944
735
843
838
Index
147
65
58
50
293
31
39
69
..
137
144
70
73
129
127
242
60
..
58
..
41
122
124
99
38
56
122
76
129
100
1.5/2.0Mbit/s
2 158
902
915
659
4 597
408
484
929
1 445
2 220
906
1 028
2 111
1 703
3 155
954
744
534
1 879
1 664
1 549
416
848
1 688
919
820
1 371
516
844
473
150
473
382
219
630
..
711
974
170
865
729
587
173
751
..
101
..
428
008
608
352
202
832
260
967
204
062
Index
157
66
67
48
335
30
35
68
..
105
162
66
75
154
124
230
70
..
54
..
39
137
121
113
30
62
123
67
60
100
OECD, Eurodata.
Table 7.20. Basket of international leased line charges, August 1998
In US$ based on PPPs, excluding tax
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
M.1020
Index
..
277 579
287 333
..
1 248 218
197 411
190 896
314 146
371 221
510 845
785 008
399 733
..
520 940
844 516
1 446 519
194 724
..
174 268
..
124 373
490 417
602 607
416 337
200 435
283 899
766 299
426 776
..
481 500
..
58
60
..
259
41
40
65
77
106
163
83
..
108
175
300
40
..
36
..
26
102
125
86
42
59
159
89
..
100
64 kbit/s
1 302
294
264
356
2 254
189
264
407
702
1 093
451
366
779
898
1 662
402
239
128
992
716
564
200
294
734
498
875
651
425
692
393
057
426
917
649
112
..
828
112
034
171
616
578
718
205
..
588
..
346
922
460
429
805
050
584
059
264
325
Note: The basket contains 20 half-circuits of each analog and 64 kbit/s, and 2 circuits of 2 Mbit/s.
Source: OECD, Eurodata.
OECD 1999
Index
200
45
41
55
346
29
41
63
..
108
168
69
56
120
138
255
62
..
37
..
20
152
110
87
31
45
113
76
134
100
1.5/2.0Mbit/s
1 547
351
366
391
2 254
206
327
550
797
1 092
541
396
921
965
1 662
402
271
190
992
790
704
232
363
1 108
587
602
716
535
430
796
926
426
118
562
728
..
851
103
241
890
522
886
718
205
..
350
..
106
812
890
889
303
273
298
620
274
183
Index
216
49
51
55
315
29
46
77
..
111
152
76
55
129
135
232
56
..
38
..
27
139
110
98
32
51
155
82
84
100
189
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 7.21. OECD basket of packet switched data communication charges, August 1998
In US$ based on PPPs, excluding tax
Fixed
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD simple average
5
2
2
4
7
1
577.3
533.4
693.2
924.9
946.5
591.0
897.3
3 007.4
2 766.7
791.6
1 164.6
3 108.2
..
1 906.0
1995.9
2 419.0
2 692.1
3 413.8
2 073.1
1 228.8
4 297.0
4 766.8
1 147.2
2 713.2
173.4
5 719.4
..
2 861.9
Usage
7
8
4
5
11
3
2
3
20
4
2
7
10
3
4
3
7
2
4
6
11
3
5
1
5
6
131.7
863.3
424.9
683.4
163.5
509.1
702.7
710.4
028.3
205.7
139.8
650.0
..
810.8
371.3
742.6
454.1
169.0
725.5
321.1
864.0
557.6
802.6
038.5
136.1
526.9
..
069.3
Total
12
11
7
10
19
5
3
6
22
4
3
10
12
5
7
6
10
4
5
11
16
4
7
1
11
8
709.0
396.7
118.1
608.3
110.0
100.1
600.0
717.7
795.0
997.3
304.4
758.2
..
716.8
367.3
161.6
146.2
582.8
798.7
549.8
161.0
324.3
949.9
751.7
309.5
246.4
..
931.2
Note: The usage charge includes a basket of 1 207 trunk or local calls made at different times of the day.
Source: OECD, Eurodata.
Table 7.22.
OECD basket of analogue mobile telecommunication tariffs, August 19981
In US$ based on PPPs, excluding tax1
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic2 (digital service)
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece2 (digital service)
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States2 (digital service)
OECD average
Fixed
Usage
300.9
266.1
387.8
288.4
284.0
104.8
60.3
871.1
240.6
451.6
69.6
352.1
590.4
508.5
299.3
629.7
370.9
293.9
506.5
146.9
511.2
440.2
150.2
387.4
121.5
449.7
599.4
349.9
358.5
658.9
785.0
495.9
1 226.8
446.3
757.9
1 162.3
851.9
888.2
321.3
638.6
678.7
945.8
472.5
1 032.3
761.7
758.5
864.9
334.9
997.9
830.9
644.5
367.6
572.4
770.1
1.0
697.2
Total
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
659.4
925.0
172.8
784.3
510.8
551.1
818.1
033.4
092.5
339.8
390.9
990.7
269.1
454.3
771.8
662.0
132.6
052.4
371.4
481.8
509.0
271.0
794.7
754.9
693.8
219.8
600.4
047.2
1.
2.
190
The usage charge includes a basket of 741 calls at different times of the day. The basket is for an analogue mobile service.
In Greece only digital mobile service is available. Data on analogue services in the United States and the Czech Republic were not available. Data provided
are for digital service. Digital services in Greece, the Czech Republic and the United States are not included in the OECD average.
Source: OECD, Eurodata.
OECD 1999
Telecommunication Pricing
number of calls, a package with higher fixed charges and low usage charges makes the most sense. The reverse
is true for someone wanting the security or convenience of a mobile service but who does not make many calls.
Many plans now allow users to purchase a certain amount of air-time per month.
As with the most competitive segments of the fixed market, competition is obliging operators to simplify
tariff structures for consumers. The Scandinavian mobile communication market is often a good indicator of
what will happen in other OECD countries. In this regard, the move by Telia to reduce the number of mobile
pricing options for customers from ten subscription plans to two is noteworthy. This initiative invites comparisons with the more simplified rate structures for the fixed network long-distance market, brought about by
maturing competition in the United States. In the future, it would be a welcome development if the same
impact was to occur for calls between fixed and mobile networks in terms of international roaming.
The basket shown in Table 7.22 is for a business user of analogue mobile service. The number of calls in
the analogue mobile basket is 741 per year. In the OECD basket this is the equivalent to 182 minutes of air-time
per month. Mobile service is increasingly using digital technologies and a basket for digital mobile service is
Box 7.2. Mobile pricing: How long before cellular competes with fixed service?
Over the past decade, when making comparisons between mobile communication and fixed network pricing,
the question has been posed as to when the two might converge. Interest has been added to this question by
innovations which allow users to have one telephone number for both services. In 1998 it was still possible to say
that cellular mobile communication prices were more expensive than fixed network service in all OECD countries.
Cellular mobile users have shown a willingness to pay premium prices compared with the fixed network for the
added value brought by mobility. In recent years, PTOs have been able to stimulate tremendous growth by offering flexible tariff packages which allow users to regulate what they pay based on usage, rather than by
lowering prices.
Cellular mobile operators have designed flexible tariff packages aimed at high- and low-volume users. From
the perspective of mobile operators, tariff packages targeting high-volume users of cellular service are aimed at
competing with other mobile communication operators. Tariff packages aimed at low users are designed to expand
the overall market for mobile communication. Neither of these packages are primarily designed to compete with
the fixed network market as, for either usage pattern, customers pay a steep premium for mobility. In 1998, however, several new tariff packages became available that are designed to compete with certain segments of the
fixed network market.
In the United Kingdom, Orange offers a tariff package under which a user pays US$57.28 for a connection and
a monthly rental of US$24.47. This price includes 20 minutes of local or national off-peak calls per day. In other
words, in a 30-day month a user effectively purchases 600 minutes of call time in advance. Calls at peak rates cost
US$0.65 and calls made beyond the initial 20 minutes are made at US$0.16 per minute. For a person who can adapt
his usage pattern to take advantage of this tariff option, the service could work out to be less expensive than the
fixed network. The advantage over the fixed network increases if users make a high proportion of national calls
within the 20 minutes included in the fixed price. The amount of time included in this option is much greater than
the average usage of the fixed network for telephony in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, this tariff package is
aimed at users making a higher-than-average volume of off-peak national calls. In other words, it is aimed at competing with a certain segment of the fixed line market based on price, over and above any additional value added
by mobility.
In Australia, customers of Optus Communications digital mobile service can make up to 3 000 minutes of “free
calls” a month between 20:00 hrs and 24:00 hrs to other customers on the Optus digital mobile network. Call duration is capped at 20 minutes, after which time normal mobile rates apply. Users wishing to avoid these charges can
disconnect at 20 minutes and redial for a further 20 minutes. One obvious advantage of this scheme is for users
wanting to make unmeasured long-distance calls at off-peak times.
In Sweden, Netcom’s mobile operator Comviq is holding a trial with a pricing structure which allows users to
pay lower rates for cellular mobile service within their “home or local” area. In three Swedish cities, users can pay
US$36.42 connection and US$15.61 in monthly rental for a cellular mobile service. Calls made within the user’s local
calling area are priced at US$0.04 per minute, national calls at US$0.31. While these prices are above the charges
for the fixed network in Sweden, the local call rate is much less expensive than standard mobile rates. Accordingly,
for users who make the majority of their mobile calls within their local area this is a relatively inexpensive way to
benefit from the added value provided by mobility. Significantly, while this tariff package is still more expensive
than the fixed network in Sweden, it is less expensive than many fixed networks in other countries for a user making predominantly local calls.
191
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
being prepared for future editions of the Communications Outlook. Prices for Greece and the United States are for
digital service because analogue prices were not available at the time of writing. AT&T’s prices are used for the
United States and an option selected which allows for three hours of calls per month included in the fixed
charges, with additional calls being charged at US$0.50. As the OECD basket is for 182 minutes, an additional
charge of US$1 is incurred by way of usage charges.
While prices for mobile service have decreased during the 1990s, mobile communication is still relatively
expensive compared to the fixed network. Most of the subscriber growth in mobile service has been driven by
flexible tariff packages rather than by lower prices. In Finland, the country with the leading penetration of
mobile subscribers, replacing a fixed residential service with a mobile service would mean a user paying more
than twice as much for the same residential usage pattern. In addition, charges for incoming calls in some countries make mobile a more expensive option. Where some substitution is occurring is where users select particular mobile pricing plans to suit their lifestyle. An example might be a user not requiring a residential fixed line
during working hours and using a mobile pricing plan geared to off-peak use (e.g. unmeasured weeknight or
weekend calls). In general, fixed and mobile services should still seen as distinctive markets. In terms of local
service, they are complementary rather than competitive. In national long-distance and international markets,
the pricing of some mobile operators is often very competitive with fixed service (Box 7.2).
The Internet is also having its first impact on mobile communication pricing as users begin to use wireless
access to read e-mails and surf the World Wide Web. Just as telephony pricing is frequently unsuitable for the
longer periods of call duration associated with Internet access, the higher prices associated with mobile service
magnify this problem. Accordingly, it will be interesting to see how mobile communication service providers
adapt their pricing to fit wireless Internet access. One of the first tariff packages aimed at mobile users for
Internet access was Bell Atlantic’s offer of unlimited wireless Internet access, within its service area, for an initial
fee of US$25 and US$54.95 per month.
192
OECD 1999
Chapter 8
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Connections
The performance of every quality of service indicator has, over time, improved in all OECD countries. In
some cases, traditional indicators, such as the waiting list for a telecommunication connection, are no longer
very relevant to a particular network. This is because the telephone penetration rate and network reach have
developed to such an extent that virtually any potential customer can receive service within 24 hours. At the
leading edge of local access service, using fixed wireless technology, customers can even receive a second connection on demand. However, there are still significant delays in receiving service in countries which have relatively low telephone penetration rates.
While enormous strides have been made between 1993 and 1997 in reducing the waiting list in the
Czech Republic and Hungary, a user can still face delays of over 200 days for a new connection (Table 8.1).
Mexico and Turkey have also reduced the waiting time to receive a new connection in recent years, but users
still face relatively long delays compared to other OECD countries. Greece is also to be commended for reducing the waiting time from 220 days in 1994 to an average of just five days in 1997. The fact that no data are available for Poland, given that it has the second lowest telecommunication penetration rate in the OECD area,
should be a cause for concern. The slight increases in Portugal and Spain from their best performance levels
in 1995 should also be a cause for concern, although yearly variations are sometimes due to forces beyond a
PTO’s control.
For most other OECD countries, obtaining a new connection should not involve an interval of more than a
few days. For countries with average to high penetration rates, only Austria and Luxembourg have historically
had a long waiting period. In the case of Austria, following the separation of postal and telecommunication
activities, a new business structure has been put into place offering customers a “six-day guarantee” for new
connections where the technical facilities are available. The company says it hopes to reduce this waiting
period during 1998. In most cases, the reported differences are due to differences in definitions. For example,
some countries report no waiting time because service orders are filled on demand or by an appointed time
agreed with the customer. In other cases, the waiting time indicates the average time to connect users in remote
areas, as service orders in urban areas are filled on demand. That being said, policy makers need to ensure that
some indication of the performance of PTOs in meeting stated goals is published.
In a number of OECD countries, even those without long waiting lists, target times for new connections can
range up to one month. As, in practice, the vast bulk of new connections are made within a third of that time,
the targets are not particularly challenging. Accordingly, when PTOs report that a high degree of connections
were made within the target time, it is not very elucidating for users or regulators. In Europe, best-practice target times are five working days in Belgium, France and Finland. This is not to say that the record in these countries is necessarily better than those with longer target times, but shorter target intervals do provide a better
indication of performance.
In the United States, the FCC publishes the percentage of installation commitments met for business and
residential users, as well as the average installation interval. The same statistics are also published for access
services provided from local exchange carriers to other carriers. This latter category include data on the average
repair interval for switched access and special access services provided by local exchange carriers. In a
OECD 1999
193
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 8.1.
Network access: waiting time for new connection
In days
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany1
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
..
..
28
3
2 170
8
5
8
..
..
1 351
..
..
12
0
0
30
..
..
1
0
..
60
8
..
4
120
0
5
..
45
..
3
1 183
9
5
8
..
220
913
..
..
10
0
0
30
..
..
1
0
..
19
5
..
4
105
0
0
..
40
7
4
847
8
6
7
..
30
803
0
13
8
0
0
30
117
5
1
0
..
8
3
5
4
90
0
3
..
..
5
..
523
..
4
6
..
9
657
0
..
..
0
0
..
45
..
1
..
..
9
4
..
3
80
0
2
..
..
4
..
218
..
5
6
..
5
219
0
11
..
0
0
..
27
1
1
..
..
9
5
..
3
60
0
2
1.
In Germany, 77.9% of applications were connected in under ten days in 1995, 78.5% in 1996 and 90.1% in 1997.
Source: OECD.
liberalised market these data are important, not only for ensuring fair competition, but also because any disruptions to these services affect the quality of service received by the customers of new market entrants.
In 1997, the average repair interval for switched access services provided to other carriers was eleven hours in
the United States. The same measure for special access services was just over four hours.
In Canada, PTOs report separately measures such as the average time for a user to receive a connection to
the network and fault repairs for urban and rural areas. Canadian PTOs also report the percentage of installation
and repair appointments that are met for competitors as well as users. In addition, PTOs with local networks
report the provisioning process whereby the incumbent telephone companies switch a customer’s longdistance service over to a competitor. The Canadian data for all quality of service measures are published on
a monthly basis on the CRTC Web site. The publication of these data in such a readily accessible format and
timely manner is a useful safeguard for users and alternative network providers.
194
For most OECD countries, the number of outstanding applications for new connections is less important
than in times past. The majority of OECD countries now report no outstanding applications because the bulk
of their current list of applications can be filled almost immediately or within the companies’ target times for
new connections (Table 8.2). Others report the number of applications on their list even if they can be filled
almost immediately. The weakness of both indicators of the average waiting time and the size of the application
list is that they do not tell policy makers how long some users have had to wait on the application list. A more
worthwhile indicator would be for PTOs to report the number of applications which have exceeded a certain
length of time. This time could be agreed with the regulatory authority and could be varied for business and
residential customers or for urban and rural customers.
OECD 1999
Quality of Service
Table 8.2.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
Network access: outstanding applications for connection
1993
1994
1995
1996
0
16 811
3 535
0
572 752
0
0
0
..
406 733
771 973
0
7 594
41 000
0
0
452
259 875
20 000
0
0
2 268 487
56 719
1 261
0
1 748
1 298 611
0
0
0
12 056
1 745
0
653 197
0
0
0
..
217 923
718 470
0
8 503
38 000
0
0
149
196 850
0
0
0
2 352 469
16 701
1 334
0
4 590
1 286 845
0
0
0
9 990
..
0
691 961
0
0
115 522
650 000
131 473
682 900
0
9 445
32 000
0
0
12
70 798
0
0
0
2 246 854
6 405
1 343
0
1 765
986 106
0
0
0
3 706
..
0
597 830
0
4
115 810
..
78 637
234 043
0
..
..
0
0
0
7 471
0
0
0
2 327 430
7 642
1 461
0
300
752 735
0
0
1997
418
48
50
6
4
412
0
..
..
0
155
0
..
0
0
495
139
0
..
..
0
0
0
114
0
0
0
..
..
000
0
0
969
0
0
OECD.
Pay Phones
In 1997 there were around five million pay phones in the OECD area (Table 8.3, Figure 8.1). In general, pay
phones should form a profitable area of operation for PTOs. In recent times, technological improvements, such
as the introduction of card phones, have helped reduce theft and vandalism. At the same time, PTOs are using
the capabilities of pay phones to offer a range of new services, including multimedia pay phones acting as information points. In addition, smart phone cards can be used to purchase other products and services such as provided by vending machines.
PTOs in Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland have already converted all their pay phones to card
phones (Table 8.4). In Australia, virtually all Telstra’s pay phones take both coins and cards. Australians make
an average of 600 000 telephone calls from pay phones each day and more than 14 million cards have been sold
every year since phone cards were launched in 1990. Telstra’s pay phones allow users to switch from coins to
card mid-call and have a large displays with the capability of displaying up to four languages. They also feature
an adjustable volume level and a hearing aid coupler in the handset. The booths are wheelchair accessible.
In a competitive environment, pay phones are also a platform for PTOs to market corporate brands and
services. Notwithstanding the benefits, it is also the case that some pay phones are placed in locations for
reasons that largely fall under the category of universal service. This includes remote locations, such as along
highways, or in some urban areas where there is a low telecommunication penetration rate. For the future, however, it is impossible to say how far the increasing use of mobile communication will affect pay phones.
TeleDanmark has reported a slightly lower number of pay phones in each year since 1995. The company
says that this reduction should be seen in the light of the growing and considerable penetration of mobile
subscriptions in Denmark. PTOs in Finland and Norway report the same downwards trend as in Denmark. As
OECD 1999
195
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 8.3.
Pay phones in the OECD area
Number of public pay phones
1995
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
35
33
14
181
21
8
25
206
165
40
38
1
6
383
801
327
1
246
19
4
14
58
33
65
58
58
140
1 432
4 423
976
816
873
842
104
084
267
000
000
536
400
502
592
900
135
839
270
546
000
100
672
912
081
236
..
112
126
100
843
864
1996
37
34
15
181
26
7
24
211
164
41
40
1
7
385
793
339
238
21
13
67
34
423
57
63
145
1 540
4 918
049
143
685
417
349
950
995
000
100
665
500
067
000
326
870
240
449
562
000
..
889
602
904
100
..
597
376
600
813
248
Number of pay phones per 1 000 people
1997
1995
1996
1997
37 362
34 172
15 685
..
28 438
7 938
23 766
226 000
162 000
51 283
42 400
948
8 000
386 186
777 200
420 782
509
257 632
22 098
..
12 504
..
37 525
424 000
..
61 220
70 698
146 900
1 748 004
5 003 250
2.0
4.2
1.5
6.2
2.1
1.5
4.9
3.5
2.0
3.9
3.8
5.6
1.9
6.7
6.4
7.3
3.1
2.7
1.2
1.2
3.4
1.5
3.4
1.6
..
8.1
1.0
2.4
5.4
4.1
2.1
4.2
1.5
6.1
2.6
1.5
4.9
3.6
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
2.0
6.7
6.3
7.5
1.1
2.6
1.3
..
3.2
1.8
3.6
10.7
..
8.0
1.0
2.5
5.7
4.6
2.0
4.2
1.5
..
2.8
1.5
4.6
3.9
2.0
4.9
4.2
3.5
2.2
6.7
6.2
9.2
1.2
2.7
1.4
..
2.9
..
3.8
10.7
..
8.4
1.1
2.5
6.4
4.9
Note: For the following countries, public pay phones installed in private places are included: Austria, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United
States.
Source: OECD.
Figure 8.1. Pay phones in the OECD area, 1997
Pay phones per 1 000 inhabitants
Card phones per 1 000 inhabitants
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Sp
ai
n
K
Sw ore
a
itz
er
la
nd
U
ni
te Italy
d
St
at
es
O
EC Ja
D pa
av n
er
ag
G e
re
ec
Fi e
nl
an
d
H
un
ga
r
Au y
st
ria
Fr
an
Po ce
rtu
ga
l
Ic
el
an
d
C
ze Nor
w
ch
a
y
R
ep
ub
l
U
M ic
ni
ex
te
d
i
c
Ki
o
ng
do
m
Ire
la
Au nd
st
r
G alia
er
m
an
Be y
lg
i
D um
e
N nm
et
a
he rk
Lu rlan
xe
d
m s
bo
ur
g
Tu
rk
ey
12
196
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Quality of Service
Table 8.4.
Quality of service: pay phones
Percentage of pay phones
that are cardphones
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
Percentage of pay phones
in working order
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
94.0
29.0
..
..
46.0
46.0
..
78.0
49.9
58.7
37.7
12.0
65.0
54.0
100.0
27.9
60.0
33.7
83.0
89.0
43.0
..
22.0
100.0
..
79.0
37.0
..
..
98.0
30.0
..
..
55.3
..
..
83.0
55.8
67.8
..
11.0
..
59.0
100.0
27.7
..
42.8
..
..
58.5
..
22.0
13.8
..
90.0
46.0
..
..
98.0
31.0
..
..
59.2
..
..
88.0
56.0
75.1
..
11.4
..
64.0
100.0
28.4
..
60.2
100.0
..
81.7
..
..
15.0
..
100.0
61.0
..
..
96.0
97.0
..
..
99.0
..
..
100.0
..
95.0
94.1
..
92.0
96.0
..
80.7
99.0
93.0
95.0
96.4
..
..
100.0
..
..
..
44.0
95.0
..
96.0
97.0
95.0
..
99.0
95.0
..
100.0
..
96.0
94.2
..
95.0
96.0
..
82.0
98.0
95.5
96.0
97.9
..
..
99.8
96.2
94.0
..
88.0
94.8
..
96.0
..
..
..
99.0
..
..
100.0
..
97.0
97.4
..
95.0
96.0
..
85.9
..
96.6
98.0
98.4
..
..
..
96.0
..
..
82.0
95.6
..
OECD.
Scandinavia leads the world in the penetration of mobile subscriptions, this may indicate that the same trend
is likely to occur in other OECD countries. A further development, which is highly relevant to this discussion, is
the advent of pre-paid cards for mobile service. This technology allows users to pay per call, with no monthly
fixed charge, from their mobile telephone. As such, these phones are the equivalent of mobile pay phones.
France Telecom’s “Mobicarte” pay-per-call service is designed for customers who want the convenience
and security of a wireless service without a subscription. France Telecom charges US$152 for the mobile kit,
including the handset, and US$41 for the smart card (including VAT). Cards can be recharged for US$22 for
30 minutes of usage (i.e. US$0.73 per minute). The time must be utilised within two months of making the first
call, so in one sense a fixed charge does apply. Incoming calls are not charged to the mobile user and calls to
emergency services are free (Police, Fire, Medical). At current levels of pricing, the “Mobicarte” usage charge is
much more expensive than using a fixed pay phone. A peak-rate local call from a France Telecom pay phone
costs US$0.04 per minute and a domestic long-distance call between US$0.12 and US$0.37 per minute.
In the United Kingdom, Vodafone offers a service called “pay as you talk”. A mobile kit including handset
and card, costs US$150. The monthly charge is US$22.73, which includes 150 minutes of off-peak pricing
(18:00 hrs to 8:00 hrs and weekends) or 12.5 minutes at the peak rate. Users do not receive a bill but instead
buy pre-paid cards. Credits are cumulative and any new credit value is added to the existing service or calling
credit that the customer already has. At off-peak mobile prices Vodafone’s prices are comparable to using a
public pay phone in the United Kingdom. The effective per-minute charge for the Vodafone service is US$0.152
for 150 off-peak minutes per month. From a public pay phone, the cost is US$0.136 per minute for a local call
and US$0.228 per minute for a national long-distance call. Including the cost of the mobile kit, spread over five
years, the cross over point between the cost of the mobile and pay phone service is 111 minutes per month
OECD 1999
197
Communications Outlook 1999
(with 50 per cent local and 50 per cent long distance). After this time, the mobile option is less expensive than
the pay phone. However, the Vodafone user has the added advantage of mobility for both sending and receiving calls. He also does not have to locate a pay phone or wait if it is occupied.
Network Faults and Maintenance
The available data indicate that network modernisation continues to decrease the amount of fault incidence although there are invariably fluctuations due to calamities (Table 8.5, Figure 8.2). The standard caveat
applies in that definitions of faults vary greatly from one country to another. Some PTOs only measure faults
detected by their own network monitoring and management systems. Other PTOs include reports of faults by
customers. In the latter case, there is also a difference between those PTOs which report this as a total number
and those which report verified faults. The most useful application of this indicator is to compare the change
in the performance of a particular PTO over time.
While more straightforward than fault incidence, indicators of fault repair times also vary across OECD
countries (Table 8.5). The indicator used by the OECD records faults repaired within 24 hours of being
reported. However, some PTOs only record faults repaired over longer time periods. In the United States, the
FCC reports the average repair interval for services between carriers but not an interval for all faults repaired.
Instead, they report the total number of initial faults reported, the number found to be actual faults and the
number of repeat faults. Accordingly, the latter measure gives some indication of the success of fault reparation.
The FCC report detailed data on the amount of downtime (scheduled and unscheduled) experienced by
switches and the major causes of these outages. Interestingly, the highest number of unscheduled outages
in 1997 were related to software design, followed by hardware failure. Of the 15 categories of outages, traffic
overload was had the lowest incidence, being only responsible for 0.3 per cent of such occurrences. In terms of
unscheduled line minute outages per 1 000 access lines, the FCC data show that hardware failure, external
power failure and natural causes were responsible for the greatest amounts of downtime. Traffic overload
caused the lowest amount of downtime per 1 000 access lines.
PTOs in a number of countries have target times for fault repairs. In Europe, these vary from between five
working hours for business users in the United Kingdom, to within five working days in the Netherlands (albeit
KPN repairs 98 per cent of faults within two working days). In Korea, the response time for repairs has been
within 25 hours since 1993. In a number of OECD countries, PTOs have compensation schemes if faults are not
repaired within a certain time period. In Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
and the United Kingdom, customers receive either proportional reductions in fixed charges, credits or compensation for loss of service. In the Netherlands, KPN Telecom will reimburse twice the monthly rental if target
repair times are not met. In Sweden, users receive three months free subscription if the fault is not repaired
within five days and six months free subscription if the fault is not repaired within ten days.
Value-added Service
198
The available data indicate that the provision of itemised billing is increasing in OECD countries. This is a
welcome development, as customer billing is the largest individual source of user inquiries and complaints to
PTOs (Table 8.6). The widespread availability of digital exchanges should also facilitate provision of itemised
billing for different services and include information such as the date, time of day, duration and tariff applied
to a call. However, some PTOs still limit itemised information to a particular service, such as international calls,
even though these calls may no longer be the most expensive. For example, there is a good case for calls from
fixed to mobile networks to be itemised as they may be charged at a higher rate than some international calls
(and at a different rate if the called party has roamed to an international destination). At the same time, measured local calls of long duration, i.e. to access the Internet, may be more expensive than relatively short international calls. Notwithstanding this, some customers may not wish to receive certain information on itemised
bills. Accordingly, the most important indicator is the availability of itemised billing for customers who wish to
receive this information. It is for this reason that some PTOs make this an optional service for which they charge
an additional amount (Table 8.7).
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 8.5. Quality of service: fault incidence and repair time
Percentage of faults repaired
within 24 hours
Faults per 100 lines per year
Notes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Australia
..
..
..
..
..
78.0
74/79
71/91
70/99
67/99
Austria
Belgium
Canada
18.0
3.0
2.3
19.0
2.0
2.3
16.7
7.4
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
82.0
85.0
93.0
87.0
85.4
92.0
87.0
..
93.0
..
..
..
90.0
79.8
Czech Republic
35.0
10.7
10.7
38.0
34.0
89.0
90.0
90.3
91.6
88.5
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
..
9.9
7.0
13.0
..
8.3
6.0
9.0
..
8.3
6.3
8.7
..
6.8
5.9
..
..
9.0
6.2
..
85.0
66.0
87.0
83.0
86.0
69.0
88.0
93.0
91.7
69.1
88.3
83.4
91.0
75.5
90.6
71.0
..
75.5
87.3
83.2
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
51.0
51.0
..
19.0
12.0
2.0
12.4
14.0
6.0
3.0
47.0
43.0
39.0
..
17.0
13.0
2.0
17.2
12.8
5.0
3.0
41.0
34.0
39.5
..
..
12.6
1.7
17.9
5.0
4.6
2.5
41.0
35.7
..
..
14.0
..
..
15.2
7.7
3.7
2.2
41.4
31.0
..
..
15.0
..
..
14.2
2.9
3.4
2.4
..
57.0
..
..
..
92.0
100.0
98.8
..
79.0
..
..
58.0
..
..
100.0
93.0
100.0
95.9
90.0
79.0
87.0
73.0
58.4
78.1
..
75.0
93.3
..
92.7
91.0
78.8
97.0
73.0
64.6
62.2
..
78.0
..
..
98.6
94.0
54.3
99.0
60.0
77.4
81.3
..
76.0
..
..
97.6
..
84.5
..
67.0
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
14.0
..
52.0
2.0
9.0
14.0
..
46.0
1.7
8.0
14.0
..
38.0
1.3
8.4
12.5
..
36.2
1.5
4.2
14.0
..
35.8
1.6
4.3
75.0
..
90.0
..
..
74.0
..
91.0
..
85.0
73.7
..
91.0
..
85.0
76.0
..
91.8
94.4
..
73.0
..
91.9
97.2
77.0
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
16.0
61.3
15.0
1.2
14.0
60.2
14.0
1.3
14.0
58.0
14.0
5.5
14.0
58.0
14.0
6.5
14.0
58.0
13.8
4.6
92.0
94.0
..
..
94.0
95.0
82.0
..
94.0
90.0
84.0
..
92.5
92.0
84.5
..
92.5
90.0
82.4
..
Source:
In 48 hours for 1993. For 1994-97, first Telstra then
Optus results are shown.
Including CPE faults.
1997 figures are average of Bell and BC Tel, urban
and rural for first quarter 1998.
Including CPE. Repaired within 72 hours prior to 1996,
and 66 hours for 1996-97.
Within 12 working hours.
In a working day.
Within three working days. Includes CPE faults
for 1993 and 1994.
For 1997, within two working days.
For 1993-95: excluding CPE.
Fault repair percentage is approximate.
Within 48 hours.
Telecom New Zealand residential only. 1990 includes
and 1992 excludes CPE and ‘‘Found OK’’ reports.
For 1993-95: within 8 hours.
Within two working days.
Faults for urban areas. In rural areas: 9.7 per 100 lines
in 1996 and 8.2 per 100 in 1997. Faults repaired within
two working days. In 1997, 81% repaired within two
working days in rural areas
1993-95: BT only; within 5 or 9 working hours.
OECD.
Quality of Service
199
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 8.2. Quality of service: faults per 100 lines per annum
1993
1997
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
n
ai
Sp
nd
g
he
et
N
Lu
xe
m
rla
bo
ex
ur
ic
en
M
ed
St
d
te
ni
U
Sw
at
ce
an
Fr
an
nl
m
Ki
d
te
ni
U
Fi
do
ng
or
w
nd
la
er
itz
N
a
re
Ko
Sw
la
nd
e
Ire
ec
re
ub
ep
R
C
ze
ch
G
l
ga
y
rtu
Po
ke
Tu
r
s
50
o
50
es
60
d
60
ay
70
lic
70
Source: OECD.
Data on the availability, uptake and price of caller line identification is still being reported in a limited
manner (Table 8.8). By way of contrast, charges for directory assistance are available (Table 8.9). In recent years,
a number of PTOs have increased the price for directory service whereas others continue to treat it as part of
their basic telephony service. One of the main issues for services largely provided by incumbents with monopoly power, is trying to determine whether they are value-added services or part of basic service. Directory assistance is regarded by some regulatory authorities as part of their definition of universal service. In some cases,
issues have arisen in respect to parts of the community with special needs, such as a physical handicap which
prevents use of the printed directory. On the other hand, directory assistance does have a cost, and the service
is used more heavily by some users than others. In this respect, it correct that PTOs are seeking to put prices
for directory assistance on a more cost-oriented basis. That being said, it should be a cause of concern that few
PTOs report the average response time for directory assistance or the accuracy of directory records.
Answer Seizure Ratios
PTOs measure how much of their outgoing traffic (including voice, data, telex, 800 numbers, etc., but not
Internet, which takes place over private leased lines) is successfully terminated in the public switched networks of other operators or countries. This is measured by the Answer Seizure Ratio (ASR) which is the percentage of calls that seize an international circuit and are answered at the terminating side. PTOs measure ASRs in
their switches and pool the results among measured carriers. The ASRs for the OECD countries are computed
as an unweighted average of all participating carriers. For 17 of the OECD countries, the ASRs fall between
60 and 70 per cent. This means that for every ten calls made to these countries, six to seven will be terminated.
200
The main reason why a call will not be terminated is because the line is in use or because the call has gone
unanswered. Other reasons can include a wrong number being dialled, technical failures in the network, lack of
capacity or some type of calamity. Therefore, interpretation of ASRs should be made with care as they are not
OECD 1999
Quality of Service
Table 8.6.
Itemised billing
Customers served (per cent)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
Potential service availability (per cent)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
89
..
100
100
0
..
..
15
..
..
..
..
..
1
..
..
..
..
..
100
..
..
..
17
..
3
7
..
100
92
..
100
100
0
..
..
16
0
..
..
..
..
1
..
..
..
..
..
100
..
..
..
54
..
3
10
..
100
97
..
100
100
0
..
..
17
1
0
..
4
..
0
..
..
1
..
2
100
..
..
..
65
..
3
10
..
100
99
72
100
100
0
..
..
18
..
..
..
9
92
..
..
..
..
..
..
100
..
..
..
92
..
..
10
..
100
100
82
100
100
0
..
..
20
..
..
..
10
0
..
..
..
..
..
..
100
..
..
..
100
..
..
10
..
100
100
54
100
100
..
46
..
100
..
..
26
..
92
57
93
..
81
..
100
100
60
..
..
..
..
65
75
89
100
100
65
100
100
..
53
..
100
..
..
40
..
95
67
100
..
92
..
100
100
71
..
..
..
..
75
77
97
100
100
72
100
100
..
61
..
100
59
..
53
100
96
100
100
..
100
..
100
100
82
..
..
100
91
85
80
99
100
100
72
100
100
..
..
..
100
..
..
..
100
96
..
100
..
100
..
100
100
91
..
..
100
..
90
78
99
100
100
82
100
100
..
..
..
100
..
..
99
100
96
..
100
..
100
..
100
100
100
..
..
100
..
100
81
100
100
OECD.
Table 8.7.
Cost of itemised billing
In US$
Monthly charge
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
OECD.
OECD 1999
Other charges
1994
1995
1996
1997
0.0
..
..
0.0
..
..
..
1.4
..
..
..
..
4.5
0.3
0.0
..
1.7
0.0
..
0.0
..
..
4.2
0.0
..
3.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
..
0.0
..
..
..
2.0
..
..
..
1.0
4.8
1.8
0.0
..
2.0
0.0
..
0.0
15.8
..
4.7
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
..
..
0.0
..
..
..
2.0
..
..
..
0.9
3.2
..
0.0
..
..
0.0
..
0.0
0.0
..
4.5
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
..
0.0
..
..
..
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.9
3.0
..
0.0
..
..
0.0
..
0.0
0.0
..
4.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
1997
$8.92 connection fee, plus $0.03 per call.
Additional $0.07 per printed page.
For first 20 items. $0.16 for next 20 items.
$0.02 per call.
Charge per bill: monthly for business, bimontly for residential.
Charges applied to cellular only.
$0.03 per call.
Initial fee: $15.78. Charge per call: $0.01.
$4.67 for the first 100 calls. Additional calls $0.01 each.
Free for ISDN subscribers.
201
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 8.8.
Caller line identification
Customers served
(per cent)
Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
Potential service
availability (per cent)
Charge per month
(US$)
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
..
0
..
..
0
0
..
..
0
0
1
0
..
0
..
5
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
0
..
..
0
..
..
0
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
0
..
0
..
..
9
..
..
0
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
100
0
..
17
0
0
..
100
31
100
100
0
..
0
..
91
66
..
..
100
72
..
38
..
0
..
100
31
100
100
0
..
100
..
..
78
..
..
100
81
..
55
..
0
..
100
100
100
100
90
..
100
..
..
99
..
..
0.0
8.9
3.6
0.0
1.8
..
..
1.0
..
0.0
0.0
..
..
..
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.6
8.0
0.0
4.7
3.7
0.0
..
..
..
0.9
..
..
..
..
..
..
0.0
..
0.0
1.8
..
0.0
4.1
3.6
0.0
..
..
0.0
0.9
0.0
..
..
3.2
1.3
4.6
0.0
..
0.0
2.2
..
OECD.
Table 8.9.
Directory assistance charges
In US$ PPP
202
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.47
0.12
0.76
0.94
..
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.40
0.17
0.80
0.99
..
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.40
0.19
0.80
..
0.60
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.63
0.18
0.83
..
0.57
0.00
..
..
0.63
0.18
..
..
0.56
0.00
..
0.82
0.64
0.18
..
0.33
0.57
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
..
0.04
..
0.19
0.00
0.26
0.16
0.00
..
..
0.00
..
0.45
..
..
0.04
..
0.19
0.00
0.25
0.16
0.00
..
..
0.47
..
0.45
..
..
0.04
..
..
0.00
0.65
0.17
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.47
0.30
0.44
..
0.11
0.04
..
0.37
0.00
0.63
0.17
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.48
0.31
0.43
..
0.30
0.06
0.21
0.36
0.00
0.51
0.18
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.49
..
0.86
..
0.96
0.06
0.21
0.36
0.61
0.52
0.18
0.13
0.25
0.00
0.46
0.34
0.85
0.12
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
0.20
0.33
0.51
0.21
0.34
0.51
0.32
0.38
1.11
0.34
0.37
1.13
0.36
0.36
1.16
0.39
0.37
1.17
Switzerland
0.46
0.47
0.95
0.99
0.05
0.05
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
0.10
..
..
0.11
..
..
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.37
0.00
0.11
0.39
0.00
Source:
Notes
Regional tariff.
Per minute charge plus additional $1.00 set-up fee.
Minitel is charged at the local call rate
for the first three minutes.
The price differs depending on the provider.
In May 1998, charge increased to $0.31.
On 1 Jan. 1998, charge increased to $0.50.
Price per minute.
International directory assistance costs $1.00.
Same as price for a local call. $0.12 is for one unit
or 3 minutes.
Per minute charge. In 1996 there was an additional set
up fee of $0.26 (6:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs) or $0.79
(22:00 hrs to 6:00 hrs).
For 1996-97: At peak times, price for 4.04 seconds,
and at off-peak times, for 2.82 seconds.
OECD.
OECD 1999
Quality of Service
a straight measure of quality. Recognising that these caveats apply ASRs are still of great interest to PTOs. This
is because, with the rare exception of PTOs which charge for call attempts, it is only from terminating calls that
PTOs generate revenue. Non-completed calls incur a cost in terms of network resources. It is also reasonable
to assume that a higher ASR is in the interest of the customer.
In 1997, Denmark had the highest ASR at more than 70 per cent, a feat only achieved previously by Canada
in 1995 and the United States in 1992. Significantly, the OECD average has increased from 51.9 per cent in 1990
to 60.8 per cent in 1997 (Table 8.10). One factor contributing to a general increase in ASRs is likely to be the
increasing penetration of mobile communication. Even if mobile telephones are unattended, the calling party
will be offered services such as voice mail and call forwarding.
For countries that have dramatically increased their ASR ratio during the 1990s, the most important factor
is likely to be improvements in the quality of the network. Among the countries that have made the biggest
gains are the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Poland and Portugal. An example of a network improvement
that might have an impact on ASRs is digitalisation. It would be expected that as digitalisation increases, the
ASRs would also be boosted. The reasons are not only due to improved quality, but also to the new services
made possible by digitalisation, such as call forwarding and voice mail when a telephone is unattended. Testing this hypothesis shows that there is a strong correlation between digitalisation and higher ASRs (Figure 8.4).
However, the gap between OECD Member countries and outside the OECD area shows that many other factors
are involved.
A number of factors not related to the network can also increase a country’s ASR. These can include the
penetration of answering machines and fax machines. This factor may partly explain why Japan and the
United States had much higher ASRs than other OECD countries at the beginning of the 1990s. Paradoxically,
Table 8.10. Answer seizure ratios
Destination
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
CAGR
1990-97
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
55.1
53.2
61.1
61.6
34.8
60.2
56.6
61.1
54.4
33.3
31.9
48.2
54.2
49.2
67.3
50.6
65.2
40.2
61.5
54.8
61.4
16.3
40.1
45.7
62.2
58.4
33.5
62.2
69.4
54.6
54.0
58.6
64.9
36.0
60.4
58.3
61.1
55.0
37.2
35.4
52.0
55.6
51.5
68.1
52.1
65.5
40.6
62.1
53.3
60.8
18.9
44.3
48.1
59.4
58.3
40.6
63.0
69.9
57.5
54.5
61.6
64.3
34.5
64.5
61.5
63.1
57.3
38.0
37.6
53.5
58.3
54.2
68.1
57.8
64.3
42.5
62.2
56.8
63.5
32.6
49.1
51.4
63.6
58.9
41.9
65.0
70.0
57.0
54.0
59.4
69.3
32.8
63.4
62.4
63.2
57.5
39.8
40.0
53.6
58.4
56.3
66.6
59.7
64.9
44.9
63.8
60.4
55.8
32.6
52.4
52.7
62.9
59.0
36.9
65.3
69.7
58.7
58.7
62.5
69.5
37.7
66.6
63.2
66.5
60.1
44.6
42.9
58.3
60.5
58.6
68.3
60.1
64.0
44.8
65.6
60.1
60.0
41.1
54.6
57.1
64.6
61.1
41.4
66.4
66.6
60.0
61.3
64.8
70.7
41.4
66.9
64.3
67.3
60.4
46.8
47.7
50.5
61.3
60.0
68.4
60.9
63.8
48.8
65.3
60.3
63.9
43.8
60.0
60.1
65.4
60.1
45.2
66.3
67.8
55.8
61.3
65.2
69.4
44.8
67.2
61.6
65.1
61.8
49.1
49.2
54.1
65.0
60.0
69.1
62.7
64.7
52.2
64.2
64.4
63.5
46.1
60.1
60.0
65.3
60.1
45.7
64.9
66.1
57.7
63.3
65.9
69.4
53.8
70.1
65.1
65.6
62.3
52.2
53.8
57.2
69.3
59.2
67.9
62.4
65.6
50.2
64.7
64.1
63.1
46.2
57.2
59.4
66.2
61.6
43.1
63.1
64.1
0.7%
2.5%
1.1%
1.7%
6.4%
2.2%
2.0%
1.0%
2.0%
6.6%
7.8%
2.5%
3.6%
2.7%
0.1%
3.0%
0.1%
3.2%
0.7%
2.3%
0.4%
16.0%
5.2%
3.8%
0.9%
0.8%
3.7%
0.2%
–1.1%
OECD average
51.9
53.1
55.5
55.7
58.1
59.4
60.0
60.8
2.3%
Source:
OECD, ITU.
OECD 1999
203
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 8.3. Answer seizure ratios, 1997
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
en
D
C
m
ar
an k
ad
Ire a
la
n
Ja d
p
Sw an
ed
Be en
lg
iu
m
Lu Fra
xe nc
m e
bo
ur
N Fin g
et la
h
n
N erla d
ew
nd
U Ze s
ni a
te la
d nd
St
at
e
Au s
s
U
t
r
ni
te Nor ia
d
Ki way
ng
do
m
Ko
G rea
e
S rm
O witz any
EC e
D rlan
av d
er
ag
e
Sp
ai
n
I
Au taly
st
ra
Ic lia
el
a
C
ze Po nd
ch rtu
R ga
ep l
ub
H lic
un
ga
G ry
re
e
M ce
ex
ic
Po o
la
n
Tu d
rk
ey
80
Source: OECD.
Figure 8.4. Answer seizure ratio and digitisation of access lines, 1990-97
OECD average
OECD
Non-OECD average
Non-OECD
Denmark
ASR
80
ASR
65
60
70
55
60
50
50
45
40
40
30
35
20
30
10
25
20
0
1990
204
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
20
40
60
80
100
% digital access lines
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Quality of Service
the increased use of terminal equipment attached to the network may now be having the opposite effect. If
users are logged on to the Internet, an incoming call may, of course, fail to terminate. The calling party may try
a number being used to access the Internet even with a second residential line. If Internet access is having an
impact, this may go some way to explaining the recent dips in the ratios for Australia (where the Telecommunications Ombudsman has reported a rise in complaints from users due to delays in receiving second lines),
Finland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Although it still has the among the highest ASRs, the trend in the United States has been downwards for
several years up to 1997. Apart from the rise of the Internet, another factor may be having an impact in the
United States. For a call-back service, an overseas user dials a telephone number in the United States and after
one ring, contact is made and the calling party hangs up, with no charge for the inbound call. The company’s
switch then calls back a pre-set number and provides a dial tone from the United States for the user to connect
and complete the call. Many companies now offer call-back services, such as IDT, Viatel, Kallback, and RSL
Communications Ltd., and the number of customers has grown during the 1990s. While the total number of
users of these services may be relatively small, they make many more international calls than the average telephone user. By way of example, in July 1997, IDT had more than 27 000 international call-back customers in
120 countries. In 1997, call-back services also began to be marketed by traditional carriers such as AT&T. If call
back decreases the ASR ratio for the United States, it may also increase the ratio for other countries. This is
because the user initiating the call is, by definition, there to take the call.
205
OECD 1999
Chapter 9
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
Employment by PTOs has shown a downward trend over the past decade. In 1987, PTOs in the OECD area
employed 2.8 million people. A decade later this had been reduced, by 0.8 per cent per annum, to 2.6 million
(Table 9.1). That being said, the overall employment level in the sector increased slightly for the three years
leading to 1997. This was due to a large extent to the exceptional performance of the US market, where over
25 000 new jobs were created during 1997. The rest of the economy, however, continues to create jobs at a faster
rate than the telecommunication sector. This means that the PTOs’ share of total national employment continues to edge downwards, reaching 0.55 per cent in 1997 (Table 9.2).
The main factors at work in the stabilisation of employment in the sector are the following. While incumbent PTOs continue to reduce the size of their workforce, the number of jobs created by new services and new
market entrants has, in recent times, largely offset the job reductions. One of the main factors at work in the
first half of the 1990s was that digitalisation was running ahead of liberalisation. Digital networks require far less
personnel in the traditional operation and maintenance employment categories than do analogue networks.
While the full digitalisation of the PSTN is drawing to a close, more than 80 per cent of the lines in OECD countries were digital and trunk networks were almost wholly digital by 1995. The new digital technology, along with
the increased adoption of outsourcing in areas such as network construction, meant that PTOs were able to
significantly reduce the size of their workforce.
At the same time, regulatory reform was not sufficiently advanced across the OECD area to allow the market to generate enough jobs to offset the losses. Competitive markets have done this in two ways. New companies entering the market have created jobs and now account for 11 per cent of PTO employment.
Liberalisation has also generated jobs inside incumbents as they expand outside their traditional markets. For
example, in 1997, some 5 per cent of France Telecom’s workforce are now based outside France. Some 10 per
cent of Telia’s workforce are now based outside Sweden and 12 per cent of Telenor’s employees are outside
Norway. In these markets the traditional PTOs are the new entrants. Accordingly, the 11 per cent contribution
to the total number of jobs is for new companies rather than for new market entries; the figure for jobs created
by market opening would be higher.
Just as important, the competition generated by these entrants has caused PTOs to expand employment
in areas such as sales and marketing. In the case of France Telecom, although 4 370 employees chose to accept
an early retirement offer in 1997, almost as many new jobs were created, principally in sales. A growing number
of PTOs have initiated programmes to help employees adapt to the new environment rather than having to
implement dramatic job cuts. For some PTOs, early retirement and retraining schemes have been implemented. In Scandinavia, a number of PTOs have used internal recruitment divisions as a way to offer staff
retraining (e.g. in mobile services) and as a way of highlighting opportunities both within the company and with
other firms looking for staff. Of the 2 387 staff members in Telia’s recruitment division at the beginning of 1997,
some 30 per cent found new jobs within the company and 34 per cent chose retirement, with a further 14 per
cent leaving for other reasons. Thus, by the end of that year, including new staff entering the division, there
were 1 039 people working in the division.
In addition, competition has driven PTOs to create new services, and hence jobs, from the new digital platforms. The skills needed for new jobs are often very different from the traditional craft jobs associated with network operation and maintenance. Accordingly, new recruitment is oriented towards people with higher levels
OECD 1999
207
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 9.1.
Number of PTO employees in the OECD area
1985
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden2
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
92
18
27
111
23
16
20
166
212
30
69
1
16
109
311
45
37
28
23
17
63
23
72
41
18
72
235
920
2 827
238
239
609
900
636
900
990
788
364
571
000
080
165
792
000
530
675
487
774
051
168
000
208
086
855
326
553
178
700
863
1990
87
18
26
127
25
17
20
156
212
28
22
13
103
272
57
50
31
17
18
65
23
78
36
20
90
240
913
2 774
018
415
031
100
112
700
067
615
000
026
052
959
472
558
283
769
703
620
770
131
794
000
563
518
500
170
085
236
000
267
1995
75
17
24
115
26
16
15
169
217
24
21
1
12
91
243
66
50
32
10
18
73
22
69
32
19
74
153
899
2 597
516
273
908
600
097
476
518
498
900
581
942
010
025
802
006
921
799
413
288
354
771
267
035
543
825
560
837
166
700
631
1996
81
17
24
104
26
16
15
167
206
23
20
11
93
241
70
57
29
10
19
73
21
75
35
20
75
155
897
2 598
456
838
926
100
598
314
835
817
800
808
552
937
918
983
778
712
816
750
690
110
624
695
602
000
330
602
408
436
700
135
1997
73
17
23
103
25
17
17
170
215
22
19
11
92
238
73
56
31
9
21
73
20
73
34
22
72
168
923
2 630
159
820
611
100
821
268
231
043
624
741
618
932
705
546
335
323
828
650
229
536
268
100
679
000
035
145
926
740
400
413
1.
1995-97 data for Japan include NTT, KDD, DDI, Japan Telecom and IDC.
2.
Data for Sweden include Telia, Netcom and Europolitan.
Source: OECD.
Table 9.2.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg1
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
208
PTO employment as per cent of total national employment
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
1.38
0.57
0.79
0.95
0.45
0.67
0.85
0.77
0.80
0.85
..
0.89
1.50
0.53
0.54
0.30
0.46
0.17
0.57
..
0.85
..
0.55
0.66
0.97
0.56
0.35
0.97
0.86
0.73
1.11
0.54
0.72
0.97
0.47
0.67
0.81
0.70
0.74
0.75
..
0.77
1.16
0.49
0.43
0.32
0.45
0.20
0.50
1.16
0.92
..
0.52
0.61
0.80
0.57
0.49
0.90
0.77
0.75
0.92
0.48
0.66
0.86
0.53
0.63
0.74
0.76
0.60
0.64
0.60
0.71
0.94
0.46
0.38
0.33
0.49
0.16
0.47
0.63
0.90
0.50
0.50
0.57
0.81
0.52
0.37
0.59
0.72
0.56
0.98
0.50
0.66
0.76
0.53
0.62
0.75
0.75
0.57
0.62
0.56
0.66
0.91
0.47
0.37
0.34
0.49
0.17
0.42
0.60
0.92
0.49
0.48
0.60
0.88
0.54
0.36
0.59
0.71
0.55
0.88
0.50
0.62
0.74
0.52
0.65
0.79
0.76
0.60
0.59
0.54
0.66
0.85
0.46
0.36
0.35
0.50
0.16
0.43
0.56
0.97
0.48
0.46
0.57
0.86
0.59
0.36
0.63
0.71
0.55
1.
National employment data from 1996 for Luxembourg and Portugal are used in the calculations for 1996 and 1997.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Employment and Productivity
of tertiary education rather than traditional craft apprenticeships. In the case of Telia, 65 per cent of new
employees recruited to the company in 1997 have a post-secondary education compared with a company average of just 22 per cent. The nature of work is also changing. Between 1995 and 1997, the number of Telia staff in
sales and marketing increased from around 15 to 22.4 per cent of the company’s workforce. Over the same
period, the number of staff members involved in operations and maintenance decreased from 35 to
27.4 per cent.
New market entrants, such as mobile communication companies, are often in the situation of needing to
recruit staff very quickly and to find staff with the educational qualifications to be able to adapt quickly to their
new tasks. For example, Omnitel, the mobile communication company in Italy increased the number of permanent employees by 33 per cent in 1997 from 2 349 to 3 125. The selection criteria the company applied were
that 80 per cent of the new staff have a diploma and 20 per cent a degree. Further training was undertaken with
these staff and sales representatives from independent dealer networks reselling Omnitel’s services. Significantly, both the Telia and Omnitel programmes highlight the priority being given to a change in business culture towards greater customer care (in the past such programmes would have been aimed at building
engineering skills).
In recruiting staff who can adapt quickly to the new environment rather than training them in traditional
telecommunication craft apprenticeships, PTOs are competing against many other sectors of the economy. This
is particularly so in sales and marketing, but also in the new software jobs being created by digital networks
and services. Add to this the higher levels of tertiary education, and it is not difficult to see why wage and salary
costs are rising. At the same time, productivity in the industry continues to increase. The number of access lines
per employee continues to rise (Table 9.3, Figure 9.1). In fact, in 1997, the average for the OECD exceeded
Table 9.3.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
OECD.
OECD 1999
PTO access lines per employee
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
Change
1990-97
Employment
change
1990-97 (%)
70.49
149.65
110.86
105.58
56.37
150.47
104.29
138.08
120.49
101.95
10.71
95.05
43.49
158.45
145.88
165.58
228.37
93.24
202.37
54.65
102.38
39.48
60.34
129.57
125.25
178.82
30.98
88.96
128.46
116.50
89.49
175.03
150.32
120.34
64.66
164.47
133.05
179.33
150.94
140.89
45.16
136.60
72.97
215.82
200.26
264.73
261.31
102.51
218.45
86.01
113.46
50.66
100.98
160.51
160.24
195.47
76.52
105.75
149.08
147.11
120.21
217.05
185.97
151.97
91.90
194.40
181.08
192.33
192.75
210.03
98.32
147.20
109.22
270.73
251.46
324.02
292.77
174.58
247.77
160.32
129.52
78.19
163.52
217.06
183.18
225.46
189.53
192.01
177.54
190.10
112.58
211.85
189.58
173.40
105.92
199.29
179.41
197.83
213.73
223.82
129.00
163.88
116.63
268.76
254.47
322.29
316.51
152.83
283.97
176.26
129.94
88.64
176.92
205.51
170.73
221.82
209.69
197.37
185.27
197.13
127.80
209.08
209.17
179.04
127.02
193.36
166.04
198.19
209.62
238.81
162.21
166.65
128.15
277.68
252.53
324.52
337.85
163.35
283.71
192.95
128.55
102.74
193.55
217.18
176.58
211.79
241.12
186.26
194.04
203.02
38.32
34.05
58.85
58.70
62.37
28.89
32.98
18.86
58.68
97.92
117.05
30.05
55.18
61.86
52.26
59.80
76.54
60.84
65.27
106.95
15.09
52.07
92.58
56.67
16.34
16.31
164.61
80.52
44.95
55.91
–15.93
–3.23
–9.30
–18.88
2.82
–2.44
–14.13
8.57
1.71
–18.86
–11.04
–2.82
–13.12
–10.63
–12.47
26.92
17.78
11.91
–1.70
–44.33
13.16
12.46
–12.24
–7.03
–6.75
9.79
–19.05
–29.76
1.14
0.04
209
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 9.1. PTO access lines per employee
1990
1997
400
350
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
N
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
Ko g
et
he rea
rla
nd
s
Ita
ly
Ja
pa
Tu n
rk
G ey
re
ec
e
Sw Sp
itz ain
er
G land
er
m
a
Be ny
lg
iu
Au m
st
ri
O a
EC
D
U
ni Fra
te nc
d
St e
a
Po tes
rtu
D g
N en al
e
U w ma
ni Z
r
te ea k
d
Ki lan
ng d
do
C m
an
a
Sw da
ed
e
Ic n
el
an
Fi d
nl
a
M nd
ex
H ico
un
ga
N ry
or
w
a
Ire y
la
C
A
ze u nd
ch str
R alia
ep
ub
Po lic
la
nd
400
Source: OECD.
Figure 9.2. PTO access lines and mobile subscriptions per employee
in the OECD area, 1980-97
Access lines per employee
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
1980
210
Access lines and mobile subscriptions per employee
300
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Employment and Productivity
Table 9.4. PTO employment data by company, 1997
Name of PTO
Country
NTT
Deutsche Telekom
France Telecom
Bell Atlantic
AT&T
Telecom Italia
BT
SBC Communications
GTE
Bell South
Ameritech
TPSA
Türk Telekom
US West Inc
Telstra
Telefonica
MCI
Korea Telecom
Telmex
Sprint
Cable and Wireless
Bell Canada
KPN Telecom
Telia
SPT
Belgacom
OTE
Swisscom
Portugal Telecom
Telenor
Worldcom
Matav
Tele Danmark
PTA
AllTEL
Mannesmann (Mobilfunk, Arcor, Eurokom)
BC-Tel
Telecom Eireann
Southern New England Telephone
Finnet Group
Telephone and Data Systems (TDS)
Vodafone
Telus
Airtouch
Telecom, NZ
Sonera (Telecom Finland)
Frontier Corp.
TIM Telecom Italia Mobile
Nextel
SK Telecom
Citizens Utilities
Williams Communications
Century Telephone Enterprises
Veba (E-plus, Otelo)
KDD
Orange
Optus
360 Communications
Telewest
NTL
Cegetel (incl. SFR)
Sasktel
LCI International
Japan
Germany
France
United States
United States
Italy
United Kingdom
United States
United States
United States
United States
Poland
Turkey
United States
Australia
Spain
United States
Korea
Mexico
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Netherlands
Sweden
Czech Republic
Belgium
Greece
Switzerland
Portugal
Norway
United States
Hungary
Denmark
Austria
United States
Germany
Canada
Ireland
United States
Finland
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
United States
New Zealand
Finland
United States
Italy
United States
Korea
United States
United States
United States
Germany
Japan
United Kingdom
Australia
United States
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
France
Canada
United States
OECD 1999
Employees
226
196
156
141
127
126
124
118
114
81
74
73
72
67
66
64
60
60
54
51
46
39
32
32
25
25
22
22
21
20
20
18
17
16
16
13
12
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
000
943
620
000
800
097
700
340
000
000
359
000
926
461
109
109
409
152
758
000
550
328
708
549
702
385
741
145
524
848
300
187
268
900
393
339
246
995
743
714
685
640
972
800
136
922
444
104
400
253
100
000
700
342
003
900
554
400
250
135
000
900
900
Personnel
costs
(million US$)
19
7
7
9
5
6
3
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
385
471
652
047
..
869
411
..
..
..
959
..
746
917
950
900
..
922
..
..
640
605
595
241
241
473
807
782
449
957
..
203
089
..
..
..
..
539
..
..
..
418
379
..
336
275
..
274
..
94
..
..
..
..
..
157
232
..
206
223
194
136
..
Access lines
per employee
266
230
215
282
0
204
222
283
243
286
276
103
241
238
141
261
0
393
169
137
24
270
271
185
128
188
239
212
186
131
0
132
193
235
109
0
206
136
235
212
53
0
206
0
226
100
134
0
0
0
143
0
211
0
0
0
13
0
221
89
0
161
0
Personnel
costs
per employee
(US$)
85
37
48
64
46
51
53
10
72
44
60
15
35
40
48
38
9
58
35
80
20
45
11
63
49
43
42
41
34
38
15
32
50
48
53
48
34
775
936
854
165
..
544
410
..
..
..
242
..
234
887
616
827
..
336
..
..
230
812
767
115
359
007
468
473
855
898
..
138
067
..
..
..
..
058
..
..
..
395
249
..
276
776
..
543
..
067
..
..
..
..
..
065
976
..
522
830
440
990
..
PTO
revenues
per employee
(US$)
345
197
171
214
401
199
205
210
204
253
215
35
43
225
179
251
325
87
139
291
291
169
242
186
49
167
130
305
145
173
362
74
267
220
199
293
162
186
207
158
151
419
162
408
276
187
316
781
115
380
228
240
158
135
602
305
408
306
244
118
452
128
421
572
810
442
141
557
592
272
039
035
840
145
532
324
834
486
770
332
627
949
645
892
747
473
889
085
185
615
946
698
077
136
829
771
962
048
560
470
724
564
272
939
488
543
409
041
944
078
709
453
265
459
883
162
269
614
187
461
175
410
742
320
427
026
211
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 9.4. PTO employment data by company, 1997 (cont.)
Name of PTO
Country
Japan Telecom
Western Wireless
MT&T
Omnitel
DDI Corp.
BCE Mobile
Airtel Movil S.A.
NBTel
Cincinnati Bell
Scottish Telecom
Comcast Cable
Vanguard Cellular
Iusacell
Clearnet
Qwest
Quebec Tel
Comcast Cellular
Aliant Communications
Excel Communications
Kingston Communications
NewTel
ACC
TeleGlobe
Centenial Cellular
Telecom Iceland (PTI)
Commonwealth Telephone
Clear
Sonofon
Telebec
Diamond Cable
General Communications
Eurotel
Telecel S.A.
Netcom
Pricellular
Energis
IXC Communications
IDC
Ionica
fONOROLA
Europolitan Holdings AB
Price Cellular
CommNet Cellular
Telegroup
Northwest Tel
Panafon
Mobistar
RSL Communications
Telestet
Radiomobil
Star Telecommunications
BellSouth NZ
Colt
Trescom International
Island Tel
Esprit Telecom
Tel-Save
Total-Tel USA Communications
Atlantic Telecom
Pacific Gateway Exchange
Japan
United States
Canada
Italy
Japan
Canada
Spain
Canada
United States
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United States
Mexico
Canada
United States
Canada
United States
United States
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
United States
Canada
United States
Iceland
United States
New Zealand
Denmark
Canada
United Kingdom
United States
Czech Republic
Portugal
Sweden
United States
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
United Kingdom
Canada
Sweden
United States
United States
United States
Canada
Greece
Belgium
United States
Greece
Czech Republic
United States
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
United States
United States
United Kingdom
United States
Total
212
Source:
Employees
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Personnel
costs
(million US$)
Access lines
per employee
735
210
128
125
927
900
500
401
400
100
010
000
892
834
666
635
600
537
500
438
345
268
204
100
086
081
000
987
955
953
950
941
884
871
800
789
712
700
700
664
615
600
596
588
582
561
561
553
460
456
454
400
340
330
314
306
235
231
200
90
..
..
94
126
..
..
..
..
..
113
109
..
..
..
..
..
..
50
..
..
..
..
..
..
32
..
..
..
..
51
..
15
27
..
..
..
..
..
52
..
21
..
..
..
24
18
26
..
13
7
..
..
28
..
11
16
..
..
11
..
0
0
243
0
0
0
0
236
419
9
118
0
0
0
0
179
0
178
0
136
0
0
0
0
155
239
0
0
0
193
0
369
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
148
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
264
0
0
0
88
0
2 706 888
90 617
189
Personnel
costs
per employee
(US$)
30
40
54
53
32
29
53
16
30
74
33
41
32
45
29
15
82
34
53
54
..
..
062
193
..
..
..
..
..
010
985
..
..
..
..
..
..
684
..
..
..
..
..
..
189
..
..
..
..
239
..
224
992
..
..
..
..
..
117
..
914
..
..
..
932
169
492
..
195
000
..
..
796
..
491
486
..
..
010
..
33 476
PTO
revenues
per employee
(US$)
911
118
124
344
3 327
301
300
132
732
81
187
124
38
418
130
278
135
969
146
177
293
1 192
137
132
181
181
177
150
103
235
368
566
606
226
348
590
985
25
435
477
309
251
573
156
784
265
543
750
206
828
392
477
164
243
1 296
533
93
3 317
116
380
646
803
089
033
546
981
000
0
802
259
097
581
189
510
091
129
568
594
687
375
115
294
659
865
758
504
226
566
588
711
257
910
250
283
871
053
719
062
546
082
678
881
314
510
687
935
928
243
630
0
173
700
874
895
885
706
208
878
215 995
OECD.
OECD 1999
Employment and Productivity
Table 9.5.
Public telecommunication revenue per employee
In thousands of US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic1
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
CAGR
1985-97
%
1997
US$
PPP
36.1
61.6
38.2
69.6
24.7
52.8
38.9
52.7
53.9
17.9
2.8
35.1
29.2
57.6
69.4
42.0
60.6
27.4
66.8
24.4
70.4
8.2
28.2
34.7
44.1
113.0
9.6
45.8
121.1
71.5
100.2
153.2
103.5
90.5
23.5
133.0
110.7
120.8
118.5
46.0
16.3
88.5
95.9
155.1
170.2
89.5
207.8
79.6
157.6
84.7
124.3
8.0
58.5
110.5
146.1
242.6
22.9
107.4
160.1
127.4
152.8
249.3
173.0
103.7
38.1
226.2
163.3
177.7
211.7
113.8
54.8
131.1
145.8
201.4
438.6
158.7
375.7
128.8
262.9
202.0
166.9
29.4
167.6
158.3
212.9
411.5
24.4
185.2
221.3
207.5
164.7
225.1
179.6
128.4
42.5
214.1
170.0
182.4
202.7
131.6
91.4
165.7
165.1
257.4
461.4
202.3
389.4
120.1
285.2
211.3
175.0
34.4
206.5
182.3
214.6
374.3
33.9
196.2
247.6
225.1
187.6
209.6
179.7
165.1
48.9
267.8
178.2
168.4
202.2
144.5
107.5
162.0
182.2
258.0
461.4
124.1
369.6
135.3
254.0
235.5
169.7
35.5
221.5
189.3
202.9
306.5
43.3
211.8
278.1
236.7
14.73
10.73
13.78
7.47
5.84
14.48
13.52
10.17
11.65
19.03
35.59
13.60
16.49
13.31
17.11
9.45
16.27
14.23
11.78
20.79
7.61
13.02
18.75
15.19
13.56
8.67
13.40
13.61
7.17
10.49
194.4
189.4
175.6
195.5
124.9
212.8
158.2
151.0
175.3
176.0
238.0
147.6
179.4
275.8
342.5
290.4
333.8
243.1
241.7
242.4
130.3
76.0
315.5
223.6
161.2
221.1
93.2
199.7
278.1
234.6
1.
Data for the Czech Republic in 1985 and 1990 is for the Czech and Slovak Republics.
Source: OECD.
Figure 9.3.
Public telecommunication revenue per employee
1990
Thousand US$
500
1997
Thousand US$
500
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
Lu
Ja
xe pa
m n
Sw bou
r
i
U tze g
ni
r
te lan
d
d
St
a
D tes
en
m
ar
k
N
I
et
ta
h
l
N erla y
ew
nd
Ze s
al
an
U
P
d
ni
o
te
rtu
d
g
Ki
a
ng l
do
m
Au
st
ria
Sw
e
G de
er n
m
an
y
Sp
a
i
Au n
st
ra
li
Ire a
la
Be nd
lg
iu
m
Fi
nl
an
N d
or
w
a
Fr y
an
C ce
an
ad
Ic a
el
an
G d
re
ec
M e
ex
ic
o
Ko
re
H
C
u a
ze
ch nga
r
R
ep y
ub
lic
Tu
rk
ey
450
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
213
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 9.6.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands2
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Number of employees in mobile telecommunications
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Subscribers
per employee
in 1997
Mobile employment
as % total telecom.
employment (1997)
1 386
250
..
4 854
371
236
340
1 521
7 890
350
399
106
..
2 000
10 271
2 159
20
1 048
..
..
439
..
709
..
2 250
220
40
5 135
63 100
105 094
2 368
..
400
5 624
579
367
400
2 083
..
550
939
..
..
2 636
13 034
2 480
20
1 263
..
370
654
..
883
..
2 008
..
45
6 920
81 000
124 623
3 279
320
433
6 330
713
510
530
3 500
11 900
800
..
22
650
5 280
15 992
3 013
22
1 397
600
811
979
..
1 098
..
2 685
..
50
9 769
102 500
173 183
4 021
1 066
..
7 404
972
832
1 068
5 459
15 200
950
1 500
..
678
7 348
18 368
4 773
..
..
..
..
1 417
..
1 313
7 800
..
..
..
11 859
122 800
214 858
3 538
1978
1 652
11 000
1 397
1 712
1 388
8 288
19 200
1 100
1 932
..
970
10 229
..
7 827
..
..
2 300
..
1 751
..
1 553
8 950
..
..
..
14 600
142 200
243 565
1 342
589
590
382
373
843
1 689
694
426
818
365
..
527
1 147
..
881
..
..
734
..
958
..
970
484
..
..
..
572
389
505
4.84
11.10
7.00
10.67
5.41
9.91
8.06
4.87
8.90
4.84
9.85
..
8.29
11.05
..
10.67
..
..
7.36
..
8.23
..
7.51
12.26
..
..
..
8.65
15.40
11.48
1.
Sonera (Telecom Finland) only until 1995. Also includes Radiolinja for 1996-97.
2.
1997 figure is for KPN only.
Source: OECD.
Figure 9.4. Number of employees in mobile telecommunications
1993
1997
Employees (logarithmic scale)
1 000 000
100 000
100 000
10 000
10 000
1 000
1 000
lia
rla
nd
s
Au
st
ria
H
un
ga
ry
N
or
w
ay
D
en
m
ar
k
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
C
rtu
ze
ga
ch
l
R
ep
ub
lic
Fi
nl
an
d
G
re
ec
e
ra
ea
he
et
Au
Ko
r
Fr
an
Sp
an
a
st
N
d
te
ni
U
C
an
y
Ki
er
ng
m
at
G
St
d
te
ni
ce
1
ai
n
1
Ita
ly
10
da
10
do
m
100
es
100
U
214
Employees (logarithmic scale)
1 000 000
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Employment and Productivity
200 access lines per employee for the first time. However, to appreciate the real productivity gain, it is necessary to consider the number of mobile subscriptions. In terms of network access paths (i.e. fixed access lines
and mobile subscriptions), the ratio has rocketed past 260 access paths per employee (Figure 9.2).
In terms of inter-company comparisons, the access line per employee indicator has a number of obvious
shortcomings. These caveats have been well documented in past editions of this publication. Comparisons are
increasingly difficult as PTOs have branched into all manner of services and adopted different degrees of outsourcing. For policy makers, the indicator has lost relevance where liberalisation has been introduced because
the number of employees is purely a matter for commercial judgement. Even at the level of company data, globalisation and diversification makes comparisons of access lines per employee only a starting point for analysis
rather than a conclusion (Table 9.4). The same caveats apply for comparisons of revenue per employee
(Table 9.5, Figure 9.3).
Employment in the mobile communication sector continues to grow as companies expand their networks
and subscriber base, and as liberalisation enables new market entrants (Table 9.6, Figure 9.4). Mobile communication is now responsible for around 260 000 direct jobs in PTOs in OECD countries (including an
estimate 1998 for Japan as data were not available at time of publication for this country). Indirectly, mobile
communication is responsible for a far higher number of jobs, but this is difficult to document because the
mobile sector uses specialised resellers to a far greater extent than the traditional telecommunication sector.
In addition, the sale of handsets, subscription packages and prepaid cards is generating employment in the
general retail sector.
Table 9.7.
Total PTO expenditure on wages and salaries
In millions of US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
1.
KT only.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
%
of total 1997
revenue
2 447
708
1 044
3 466
88
718
446
6 286
7 679
630
166
21
389
4 029
21 220
..
7
1 860
1 474
289
575
..
..
2 378
1 054
1 164
972
6 469
29 344
94 920
2 573
733
1 119
3 211
97
696
512
6 448
8 072
715
178
21
409
4 352
22 980
..
11
1 914
1 581
300
674
..
557
2 315
999
1 250
556
6 651
30 471
99 395
2 852
855
2 913
3 223
176
842
648
5 900
9 209
807
176
25
454
4 306
24 499
..
11
1 110
1 872
351
824
..
660
2 585
1 114
1 822
421
6 597
31 943
106 197
3 370
..
1 724
3 197
170
832
660
5 989
8 777
826
266
77
460
4 866
19 396
..
..
..
..
..
945
..
702
3 493
1 374
1 900
613
6 897
29 844
96 379
3 230
..
1 473
..
167
1 089
..
5 624
7 471
838
269
61
454
4 398
..
922
97
..
1 446
336
984
..
6.93
3 061
1 244
1 782
746
8 340
49 060
93 784
23.5
..
34.7
..
13.3
23.6
..
19.6
17.1
25.5
12.8
40.2
21.3
18.4
..
100.8
31.5
..
18.2
14.9
27.3
..
15.1
22.1
18.0
26.3
23.6
23.3
19.1
19.6
215
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 9.8.
Total PTO wages and salaries per employee and per access line
In US$ based on PPPs
Per employee (in thousands)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Per access line
1993
1997
1993
1997
37.9
32.7
38.2
32.9
11.0
31.4
27.6
35.0
25.8
29.7
17.9
17.2
31.6
44.3
52.9
..
7.5
63.1
37.4
36.2
24.6
..
..
34.8
32.0
39.3
19.0
36.4
33.4
35.2
45.7
..
60.9
..
16.5
50.1
..
29.7
30.0
44.9
30.4
59.3
38.2
50.8
..
32.6
105.3
..
44.1
36.2
35.5
..
47.7
49.5
29.0
58.1
22.0
46.6
53.1
44.5
311.1
165.8
220.2
211.8
138.7
173.3
151.4
174.8
161.0
165.1
234.2
119.1
346.6
170.9
217.6
..
27.6
412.2
168.3
231.2
195.7
..
..
180.9
141.1
187.7
146.2
247.2
198.1
199.9
357.9
..
291.3
..
130.3
259.2
..
149.6
143.3
188.0
187.4
356.0
297.8
182.9
..
90.7
311.7
..
155.3
187.8
276.2
..
246.6
227.9
164.5
274.1
91.3
250.2
273.8
218.8
1.
KT only.
Source: OECD.
Figure 9.5. PTO wages and salaries per employee and per access line, 1997
Per employee (left scale)
Thousand US$ (in PPPs)
120
Per access line (right scale)
US$ (in PPPs)
400
350
100
300
80
250
60
200
150
40
100
20
50
0
216
d
itz
er
la
nd
te
d
St
at
es
Ita
l
D
en y
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n
Po
U
ni
rtu
te
ga
d
Ki
ng l
do
Au m
st
ra
lia
G
re
ec
e
O
EC
N
et
he D
rla
nd
s
N Irela
ew
n
Ze d
al
an
N d
or
w
ay
Ko
re
a
H
un
ga
r
G
er y
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
C
Tu
ze
rk
ch
R ey
ep
ub
lic
ni
U
Sw
Ic
el
an
iu
lg
Be
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
m
0
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Employment and Productivity
Table 9.9.
Telecommunications in the workplace
Business access lines per 100 employees in the national workforce
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
Source:
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
19.5
..
..
24.9
..
..
..
..
39.7
27.0
..
..
23.5
17.7
23.9
16.2
..
4.8
24.2
..
..
..
8.9
18.8
25.1
25.3
2.6
17.5
32.0
23.7
29.9
..
21.6
33.6
..
21.9
25.8
..
..
31.9
..
25.2
27.7
20.2
28.0
24.7
35.1
6.0
26.2
22.0
23.4
..
12.5
25.6
28.0
29.9
13.4
21.8
36.4
27.2
32.3
..
..
41.1
16.8
24.6
37.6
35.8
16.6
30.8
12.3
25.2
30.9
27.9
29.5
34.0
43.2
7.2
..
25.4
30.8
6.8
19.0
30.9
35.4
32.2
17.9
28.1
40.7
29.2
31.4
..
..
43.0
19.3
..
39.0
37.3
21.8
41.3
12.4
26.0
..
28.9
29.0
35.8
48.5
6.6
..
..
35.2
7.4
19.7
33.1
36.3
30.7
24.8
30.1
43.2
31.1
31.4
..
..
..
21.4
..
37.7
39.7
24.0
..
16.0
26.2
..
30.8
..
39.5
..
6.6
..
..
45.5
..
21.7
34.4
36.9
..
..
31.0
46.7
34.7
OECD.
Data on total wages and salaries are not readily available for all PTOs but, in a number of countries, with
the incumbent reducing its workforce more rapidly than new job creation, total expenditure on wages and salaries has declined (Table 9.7). At the same time, however, average wages and salaries per employee and per
access line have for the most part been increasing (Table 9.8, Figure 9.5).
Finally, by weighting the number business lines by total employees in all sectors in the OECD area, it is
possible to show the increasing use of telecommunications in the workplace (Table 9.9). While this measure
does not capture all telecommunication access in the workplace, it is interesting to see the significant increase
in the number of business lines per 100 employees. In 1997, businesses as a matter of course use more than
fixed access lines to provide staff with telecommunication facilities. Alternatives include the use of mobile
communication and a multitude of private network configurations. In addition, the number of access lines
understates use of telecommunications in that businesses commonly multiplex lines to provide greater connectivity than indicated by counting access lines. Nevertheless, as noted in past editions of the Communications
Outlook, the higher densities reflect the growing importance of telecommunications in the workplace.
217
OECD 1999
Chapter 10
TRADE IN COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
Increased trade in telecommunication and broadcasting equipment has followed in the wake of growing
demand for communication services and increasing market liberalisation. In 1996, OECD exports of telecommunication and broadcasting equipment (communication equipment) reached US$95.1 billion, an increase of
5.4 per cent over 1995 and a 108 per cent increase over 1990 (Table 10.1). At the same time, OECD countries
had communication equipment imports of US$87.4 billion, an increase of 6.4 per cent over 1996 and 72 per cent
over 1990 (Table 10.2). The trade surplus for communication equipment by OECD recorded US$7.7 billion
in 1996. .
Trade in communication equipment is growing more rapidly than both the global economy and global
trade in manufactured goods (Figure 10.1). Growth in equipment trade is higher than that for telecommunication service: telecommunication service revenue recorded a 65 per cent increase between 1990 and 1996, at a
time when equipment trade doubled.
Figure 10.1. OECD trade in communications equipment, 1990-96
Index based on US$, 1990 = 100
Communications exports
Telecom revenues
Communications imports
GDP
Index, 1990 = 100
225
Index, 1990 = 100
225
200
200
175
175
150
150
125
125
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
1990
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
Note: Total exports in 1996 include data from 1995 for SITC 76417 as none was available for 1996.
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
1995
1996
219
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 10.1. Breakdown of OECD communication equipment exports1
In thousands of current US$
From:
To:
OECD OECD
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
19962
33 797 945
35 047 735
37 818 527
39 312 270
49 925 797
59 730 702
63 470 527
1 877 976
1 160 893
1 678 451
524 873
355 551
469 686
236 873
1 001 814
523 296
3 259 543
1 046 152
2 071 110
501 786
528 474
743 869
608 935
1 229 559
632 069
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
China
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Brazil
Malaysia
Russia
Singapore
Thailand
786
1 146
1 020
299
418
343
132
850
441
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Non-OECD Europe
Non-OECD Asia
Non-OECD Africa
Non-OECD America
Other non-OECD
995 201
7 022 251
1 588 138
1 579 755
777 023
741 182
8 586 422
1 684 508
1 691 896
994 846
45 760 312
48 746 589
OECD World
CAGR
1990-96
1990
697
657
285
467
941
138
625
314
372
1 189
977
1 263
419
381
696
74
965
473
490
749
700
787
203
239
392
009
148
1
10
1
2
032
286
583
277
996
440
1 304 573
093 12 502 115
148
1 373 398
747
2 684 382
896
807 665
53 994 851
57 984 403
4 251
940
2 599
653
885
1 055
1 152
1 373
1 064
2
15
1
4
1
237
683
885
109
387
959
594
605
016
562
721
465
351
576
4 504
889
3 371
854
1 369
1 254
1 531
1 608
1 303
665
667
711
874
556
049
760
337
451
75 229 432
11.1
771
337
833
137
359
624
763
346
302
29.0
–4.1
22.7
25.6
24.2
23.1
53.7
11.3
16.6
047
166
473
975
353
23.8
16.9
5.8
20.3
21.8
90 255 625
95 088 541
13.0
027
2 780 063
752 18 601 769
388
2 116 961
900
4 719 305
568
1 726 826
3 621
894
3 477
1 176
1 534
1 194
1 746
1 618
1 109
3
17
2
4
2
578
905
224
794
535
As a percentage of total to world
OECD OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
China
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Brazil
Malaysia
Russia
Singapore
Thailand
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Non-OECD Europe
Non-OECD Asia
Non-OECD Africa
Non-OECD America
Other non-OECD
OECD World
73.9
71.9
70.0
67.8
66.4
66.2
66.7
–1.7
1.7
2.5
2.2
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.3
1.9
1.0
2.4
2.0
2.6
0.9
0.8
1.4
0.2
2.0
1.0
3.5
2.2
3.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.4
1.9
1.0
5.6
1.8
3.6
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.1
2.1
1.1
5.7
1.3
3.5
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.4
5.0
1.0
3.7
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.4
3.8
0.9
3.7
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.2
14.2
–15.1
8.6
11.2
9.9
9.0
36.0
–1.5
3.2
2.2
15.3
3.5
3.5
1.7
1.5
17.6
3.5
3.5
2.0
1.9
19.1
2.9
4.2
1.8
2.2
21.6
2.4
4.6
1.4
3.0
20.8
2.5
5.5
1.8
3.1
20.6
2.3
5.2
1.9
3.8
18.8
2.3
5.0
2.7
9.6
3.5
–6.4
6.5
7.8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.
Includes data on: Telephone sets: SITC 764.11; Switching equipment: SITC 764.15; Transmission equipment: SITC 764.31, 764.32; Receivers: SITC ’764.81;
Television receivers: SITC 761; Radio broadcasting receivers: SITC 762; Other equipment (line telephony): SITC 764.13, 764.17, 764.19, 764.91. Revision 3.
2.
Data on other apparatus for carrier-current liner systems (SITC 764.17) are from 1995. 1996 data were not available.
Source: OECD FTS database.
220
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Table 10.2. Breakdown of OECD communication equipment imports1
In thousands of current US$
To:
From:
OECD OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
China
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Brazil
Malaysia
Russia
Singapore
Thailand
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Non-OECD Europe
Non-OECD Asia
Non-OECD Africa
Non-OECD America
Other non-OECD
OECD World
CAGR
1990-96
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
19962
38 993 728
40 169 346
39 762 278
39 397 169
48 268 786
59 377 377
63 243 735
8.4
2 250 984
2 095 505
1 043 500
49 295
164 407
1 924 991
22
2 515 504
485 516
2 641 040
1 815 283
994 235
113 141
160 932
2 557 180
2
2 519 298
787 479
3 146 565
1 711 280
854 242
226 771
161 296
3 120 376
8 537
2 147 493
1 113 739
3 902 856
1 580 737
808 609
412 638
139 888
3 792 362
4 920
1 885 212
1 219 220
5 632 015
1 733 912
669 617
657 073
108 084
5 157 750
7 524
2 169 016
1 326 984
6 310 666
1 881 194
750 864
693 092
102 396
6 071 445
7 071
2 103 994
1 417 451
6 797 727
1 816 808
770 542
853 920
180 962
5 748 577
13 022
1 711 932
1 585 428
20.2
–2.4
–4.9
60.9
1.6
20.0
..
–6.2
21.8
124
10 945
50
222
484
509
110 626
629 12 148 721
428
70 070
498
220 273
907
348 547
50 821 700
53 067 582
110
13 326
78
252
394
845
991
792
394
084
53 925 384
142
14 840
113
174
221
965
776
797
845
765
54 891 318
144
18 979
67
162
506
542
246
007
161
381
68 128 123
175
21 253
72
144
1 127
511
064
164
815
406
274
21 516
76
301
1 965
547
701
226
150
252
14.1
11.9
7.1
5.2
26.3
82 150 338
87 377 611
9.5
As a percentage of total from world
OECD OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
China
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong, China
Indonesia
Brazil
Malaysia
Russia
Singapore
Thailand
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
OECD
Non-OECD Europe
Non-OECD Asia
Non-OECD Africa
Non-OECD America
Other non-OECD
OECD World
76.7
75.7
73.7
71.8
70.9
72.3
72.4
–1.0
4.4
4.1
2.1
0.1
0.3
3.8
0.0
4.9
1.0
5.0
3.4
1.9
0.2
0.3
4.8
0.0
4.7
1.5
5.8
3.2
1.6
0.4
0.3
5.8
0.0
4.0
2.1
7.1
2.9
1.5
0.8
0.3
6.9
0.0
3.4
2.2
8.3
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.2
7.6
0.0
3.2
1.9
7.7
2.3
0.9
0.8
0.1
7.4
0.0
2.6
1.7
7.8
2.1
0.9
1.0
0.2
6.6
0.0
2.0
1.8
9.8
–10.8
–13.1
47.0
–7.2
9.6
..
–14.3
11.3
0.2
21.5
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.2
22.9
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.2
24.7
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.3
27.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
27.9
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.2
25.9
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.3
24.6
0.1
0.3
2.2
4.2
2.3
–2.1
–3.9
15.4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.
Includes data on Telephone sets: SITC 764.11; Switching equipment: SITC 764.15; Transmission equipment: SITC 764.31, 764.32; Receivers: SITC ’764.81;
Television receivers: SITC 761; Radio broadcasting receivers: SITC 762; Other equipment (line telephony): SITC 764.13, 764.17, 764.19, 764.91; Other
equipment (wireless/broadcasting): SITC 764.93. Revision 3.
2.
Data on other apparatus for carrier-current liner systems (SITC 764.17) are from 1995. 1996 data were not available.
Source: OECD FTS database.
221
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
In 1996, two-thirds (67 per cent) of OECD communication equipment was exported to OECD countries
(Figure 10.2). This share had decreased from 74 to 67 per cent between 1990 and 1995, reflecting the growing
demand from outside the OECD area. The Asian region is the largest market for OECD communication equipment. In 1996, the share of communication equipment exported to Asia from OECD countries was 19 per cent,
followed by exports to Central and South America (5 per cent), non-OECD Europe (4 per cent). Between 1990
and 1996, the Asian, the Central and South American and non-OECD European regions increased their share,
while Africa decreased its share. Imports from intra-OECD countries accounted for 72 per cent of total OECD
imports of communication equipment, which is higher than that of exports. Outside the OECD area, OECD
countries imported communication equipment mostly from Asia (25 per cent). Imports from the other regions
are relatively small (Figure 10.3).
Figure 10.2. OECD communications equipment exports, 1996
By region of destination
By product
US$95.1 billion
Receivers 2%
Television receivers 16%
Radio broadcasting
receivers 7%
OECD 67%
Transmission equip. 22%
Other
non-OECD 3%
America 5%
Africa 2%
Other equipment
(line telephony)
25%
Switching equip. 6%
Non-OECD
Telephone sets 3%
Asia
19%
Europe
4%
Other equipment
(wireless/broadcasting) 19%
Source: OECD FTS database.
Figure 10.3.
OECD communications equipment imports, 1996
By region of origin
By product
US$87.4 billion
Television receivers 16%
Receivers 1%
Radio broadcasting
receivers 17%
OECD 73%
Transmission equip. 18%
Other
non-OECD 2.2%
Africa 0.1%
America 0.3%
Switching equip. 3%
Non-OECD
Other equipment
(line telephony)
23%
Telephone sets 6%
Asia
24.6%
222
Source:
Europe
0.3%
Other equipment
(wireless/broadcasting) 16%
OECD FTS database.
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
In 1996, the largest categories of export products were line-telephony-related equipment (which includes
most of line-telephony equipment except telephone sets and switching equipment) at 25 per cent, followed
by transmission equipment (22 per cent), other wireless and broadcasting related equipment (19 per cent),
television sets (16 per cent) and radio broadcasting receivers (7 per cent) (Table 10.3, Figure 10.2). The largest
categories of import products were line telephony equipment (23 per cent), followed by transmission equipment (18 per cent), radio broadcasting receivers (17 per cent), television sets (16 per cent) and other wireless
and broadcasting related equipment (16 per cent) (Table 10.4, Figure 10.3). Between 1990 and 1996, the share
of exports of transmission equipment increased from 12 to 21 per cent, while the share of televisions exported
declined from 24 to 16 per cent. In the same period, transmission equipment was responsible for an increased
share of imports. The growth in transmission equipment trade reflected the significant growth in mobile
telecommunications.
Table 10.1 shows details of communication equipment exports to outside the OECD area. Among the Asian
countries, China is one of the fastest growing communication equipment markets for OECD countries. In 1996,
the OECD countries exported US$3.6 billion of equipment (3.8 per cent of total OECD exports) to China;
in 1990, they exported only US$0.8 billion equipment to the same country. Hong Kong (China) (sometimes acting as a gateway for re-export to China) also remained a large market for OECD countries and received exports
of $3.5 billion of equipment in 1996 (3.7 per cent of total OECD exports). OECD countries exported over
several billion dollars worth of communication equipment to other Asian countries such as Singapore
(US$1.6 billion), Malaysia (US$1.2 billion), Indonesia (US$1.2 billion), Thailand (US$1.1 billion). The demand
for communication equipment is strong in other regions as well as in Asia. For example, communication equipment exports to the Russian Federation stood at US$1.7 billion in 1996 (1.8 per cent of total OECD exports),
while they recorded only US$0.1 billion in 1990. At the same time, exports to Brazil amounted to US$1.5 billion
in 1996 (1.6 per cent of total OECD exports), while they amounted to US$0.4 billion in 1990.
Table 10.2 shows the origin of OECD imports of communication equipment. Non-member countries having
a substantial share of communication trade are centred in Asia. China is one of the fastest growing trade partners for the OECD area. Imports of communication equipment from China amounted to US$6.8 billion in 1996
(7.8 per cent of total OECD imports), which was more than double the amount for four years earlier. Imports
from Malaysia (US$5.7 billion, 6.6 per cent of total OECD imports) and Thailand (US$1.6 billion, 1.8 per cent of
total OECD imports) also showed rapid growth in 1990s. At the same time, imports from Chinese Taipei
(US$1.8 billion), Singapore (US$1.7 billion) and Hong Kong (China) (US$0.8 billion) make up a substantial share
of total OECD imports. However, the share of these countries showed a decline from 11.1 per cent in 1990 to
5.0 per cent in 1996.
Among selected Asian economies, the OECD countries have a trade surplus only with Hong Kong (China),
which has increased its imports from OECD countries rapidly over recent years (Figure 10.4). Trade deficits with
Malaysia increased dramatically, while trade deficits to Singapore declined steadily. OECD trade with China
and Thailand continued to increase, with the deficits varying from one year to another.
The trends in the trade balances of intra-OECD regions and countries are shown in Figure 10.5. The
United States continued to expand both its exports and imports; however, it still recorded annual trade deficits
because of stronger growth of imports. EU trade in communication equipment was balanced in 1993, and the
area continued to increase its trade surplus. In contrast, Japan which historically had a large trade surplus in
the 1990s, has continued to reduce its trade surplus through increased imports and slower exports.
Table 10.5 shows trade balances in communication equipment by country. The countries with the most
favourable trade surplus for communication trade equipment were Sweden, Mexico, Japan, Korea and Finland,
while those with the largest trade deficits were the United States, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy.
Weighting trade balances by population helps to put the performance of Member countries in perspective
(Table 10.6): Sweden and Finland continued their outstanding export performance relative to the size of their
domestic market with weighted trade surpluses of US$677.9 and US$502.7 per capita, respectively. The performance of mobile communication equipment manufacturers such as Ericsson in Sweden and Nokia in Finland
played an important role in this. By way of contrast, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Switzerland and
Norway recorded the largest trade deficits per capita (Figure 10.6).
OECD 1999
223
In thousands of US$
Telephone sets
Australia2
Austria
Belgium-Luxembourg
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
EU
NAFTA
EFTA
4
42
77
268
1
58
4
129
242
718
145
429
757
711
429
597
961
705
729
1 803
n.a.
53 764
46 381
334 792
172 904
537 241
77 146
948
15 919
488
15 097
117 472
67 514
137 396
801
284 720
324 690
3 020 257
1 218 089
1 130 687
153 314
Switching
equipment
13
53
86
113
3
8
269
654
1 171
1
5
3
1
550
947
749
469
185
136
914
053
930
194
1 090
n.a.
39 535
101 053
488 588
88 951
17 736
28 722
1 953
24 983
1 460
480
92 015
601 021
34 926
22 489
284 482
120 039
324 650
392 230
251 244
59 909
Transmission
equipment
44
38
135
755
11
351
2 017
1 307
2 995
11
6
3
2
4
21
13
6
045
365
892
686
174
881
323
584
920
314
100
n.a.
184 038
300 768
903 378
529 265
508 781
1 721
53 816
163 673
1 411
5 524
94 721
357 472
57 614
16 435
618 847
910 953
383 701
421 370
175 420
221 287
Receivers
Television
receivers
14
3
3
6
5
41
772
45
629
163
980
857
733
12 939
14 973
19 686
45 225
12 704
44
n.a.
115 538
6 971
282 903
236 181
249 150
29 619
2 501
1 326
164
1 151
6 438
21 764
20 219
206
91 143
509 472
1 709 681
385 295
765 479
21 545
140
129
899
864
3
31
5
537
2 031
2 206
3 330
102
1
15
6
4
9
133
19
850
116
13
216
867
708
084
350
084
23
304
120
459
505
973
363
564
765
845
863
076
4
127
513
576
484
765
861
935
215
512
004
380
161
994
580
285
322
557
311
592
212
Radio
broadcasting
receivers
4
13
562
13
1
118
5
406
561
1
30
1
1
7
3
1
978
179
356
707
205
229
757
963
022
337
201
n.a.
2 123
19 716
518 825
530 092
104 540
448 786
2 486
2 990
1 005
528 800
44 103
47 713
12 253
239
399 153
648 936
030 692
159 236
767 183
15 243
Other equipment
(line telephony)1
271
42
745
2 047
41
112
439
1 246
2 368
30
7
338
1 042
3 595
582
133
1 112
20
194
36
26
515
1 374
272
21
2 592
4 420
23 634
11 988
6 601
467
690
576
349
833
172
607
587
731
841
226
675
0
094
256
694
895
275
794
627
645
156
061
757
551
981
211
731
688
702
161
795
626
Other equipment
(wireless/broadcasting)
46
127
191
318
71
254
524
1 023
1 144
2
82
2
1
1
2
1
3
17
8
5
30
573
104
354
349
399
18
115
75
45
127
853
80
13
194
816
940
493
484
196
508
285
009
809
541
081
619
105
906
434
444
3
462
461
113
868
266
915
339
721
527
721
747
663
296
688
945
060
535
352
135
020
Notes: Telephone sets: SITC 764.11; Switching equipment: SITC 764.15; Transmission equipment: SITC 764.31, 764.32; Receivers: SITC 764.81; Television receivers: SITC 761; Radio broadcasting receivers: SITC 762;
Other equipment (line telephony): SITC 764.13, 764.17, 764.19, 764.91; Other equipment (wireless/broadcasting): SITC 764.93. Revision 3.
1.
Data on other apparatus for carrier-current liner systems, included in other line telephony equipment (SITC 764.17) are from 1995. 1996 data were not available.
2.
Data for Australia under SITC 764.32 not available in 1996. 1995 figure was used.
Source: OECD FTS database.
Communications Outlook 1999
224
Table 10.3. Communication equipment exports in OECD countries, by value, 1996
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table 10.4. Communication equipment imports in OECD countries, by value, 1996
In thousands of US$
Telephone
sets
Australia
Austria
Belgium-Luxembourg
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
EU
NAFTA
EFTA
2
5
1
2
41
74
111
165
28
34
26
218
411
37
13
3
20
159
259
16
231
171
25
50
43
19
131
72
80
11
274
563
298
764
960
134
684
730
115
906
135
405
510
720
159
870
094
458
464
531
055
232
241
071
043
343
242
583
952
535
894
367
977
700
017
624
847
694
Switching
equipment
34
37
73
212
50
17
15
78
140
25
14
9
110
516
65
96
41
14
25
58
17
194
58
77
27
237
271
2 523
1 057
580
103
731
651
160
949
946
752
007
165
298
645
897
295
517
454
410
287
315
373
567
399
119
873
189
598
504
244
551
287
181
233
551
198
Transmission
equipment
1
1
1
4
15
6
4
692
144
262
626
141
390
190
586
848
70
178
13
53
036
126
640
226
173
105
239
186
123
663
371
220
272
973
019
579
890
871
473
434
650
917
419
268
765
307
682
832
377
792
579
374
196
097
647
022
977
305
476
905
614
904
823
537
249
031
163
342
449
603
592
Receivers
76
10
8
71
41
2
3
98
59
24
5
7
6
34
76
93
16
3
7
4
7
11
6
20
26
117
260
1 103
380
425
28
727
170
276
642
854
338
313
908
581
952
292
517
837
913
287
004
583
726
105
061
965
308
141
135
466
569
177
542
391
776
767
044
Television
receivers
Radio
Broadcasting
Receivers
Other equipment
(line telephony)1
Other equipment
(wireless/broadcasting)
281
227
280
377
77
230
92
057
731
105
31
14
66
646
484
86
158
836
77
115
55
159
531
255
263
51
735
025
056
954
561
393
319
164
546
685
79
141
74
749
589
77
21
3
49
520
910
130
409
692
64
78
126
85
459
189
155
88
868
457
741
208
553
237
461
237
462
107
283
311
178
913
762
94
116
12
225
720
547
561
321
109
175
285
237
175
081
521
389
132
844
160
429
637
589
686
236
237
183
607
127
213
259
960
123
38
65
4
141
374
526
798
697
286
38
104
146
87
355
056
116
134
059
663
645
377
968
225
1
1
1
4
14
6
4
383
376
174
425
997
225
146
452
368
913
983
603
174
010
297
306
408
556
841
976
253
282
725
252
268
034
291
512
230
944
346
847
1
5
14
6
6
980
965
221
676
916
037
954
978
336
334
314
918
100
481
795
792
696
193
125
183
334
067
423
865
782
777
982
642
867
937
014
883
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
20
10
5
011
021
912
195
189
222
077
108
433
336
702
281
018
095
829
887
754
373
029
214
545
762
558
671
385
414
851
875
749
438
825
880
1
1
1
1
2
13
6
3
219
751
880
783
345
448
562
141
795
222
670
017
291
644
363
784
996
366
602
829
337
441
269
873
189
543
285
189
834
968
967
035
225
Trade in Communication Equipment
Notes: Telephone sets: SITC 764.11; Switching equipment: SITC 764.15; Transmission equipment: SITC 764.31, 764.32; Receivers: SITC 764.81; Television receivers: SITC 761; Radio broadcasting receivers: SITC 762;
Other equipment (line telephony): SITC 764.13, 764.17, 764.19, 764.91; Other equipment (wireless/broadcasting): SITC 764.93. Revision 3.
1.
Data on other apparatus for carrier-current liner systems, included in other line telephony equipment (SITC 764.17) are from 1995. 1996 data were not available.
Source: OECD FTS database.
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 10.4. Evolution of communications equipment exports,
imports and trade balance of OECD with selected Asian economies, 1990-96
Exports
Imports
Balance
Value (in US$ billion)
3.0
Value (in US$ billion)
8.0
Singapore
China
6.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-2.0
-4.0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Value (in US$ billion)
4.0
1995
1996
Value (in US$ billion)
8.0
Hong Kong (China)
Malaysia
6.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
-2.0
0.0
-4.0
-1.0
-6.0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Value (in US$ billion)
2.5
1995
1996
Value (in US$ billion)
2.0
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-1.0
1990
226
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: OECD FTS database.
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Figure 10.5. Evolution of the trade balance of communications equipment
for selected OECD regions/countries, 1990-96
Exports
Imports
Balance
Value (in US$ billion)
30
25
Value (in US$ billion)
16
United States
Japan
14
20
12
15
10
10
8
5
6
0
4
-5
2
-10
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Value (in US$ billion)
50
1995
1996
Value (in US$ billion)
25
EU
Other OECD countries
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
-5
-10
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: OECD FTS database.
Between 1992 and 1994, five countries – France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico and the United Kingdom –
reversed their trade balance from deficit to surplus. However, between 1994 and 1996, with the exception of
Canada, no OECD countries turned a surplus in communication trade into a deficit, or vice versa. Among the
18 OECD countries which had deficits in communication trade between 1994 and 1996, only five countries, including the United States, decreased their deficits. Among the ten OECD countries which had a surplus in communication trade in the same period, only Japan recorded a lower surplus.
In respect to exports and imports by category, Mexico is the largest exporter of telephone sets and television receivers (mainly assembly for the United States market). The United States is the largest exporter of
transmission equipment, receivers and line-telephony equipment. At the same time, the United States is the
largest importer of all categories except switching equipment (Tables 10.3 and 10.4).
Figure 10.7 shows the balance of exports and imports per capita. The use of communication equipment
can be broadly divided between consumers and businesses. Television receivers and radiobroadcasting are a
typical example of consumer equipment. Mexico, Korea and Japan are mapped on the upper left side,
OECD 1999
227
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 10.5. Trade balances (export-imports) of OECD countries for communications equipment
In thousands of US$
1990
Australia
Austria
Belgium-Luxembourg
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
NAFTA
EU
EFTA
Source:
–607
308
341
–576
64
471
–248
–707
–306
–31
–81
–1 900
9 940
–1 032
–906
–303
–194
–298
–1 593
1 119
–740
–72
–768
–6 940
–5 061
–8 548
–4 504
–965
350
839
949
082
..
307
882
457
726
653
..
227
694
184
920
..
287
226
182
178
..
905
235
562
571
387
408
095
388
464
949
976
1991
–618
303
268
–800
–68
171
–211
–1 202
–296
–40
–11
–2 139
11 125
–1 225
–966
–267
–193
–357
–1 456
1 180
–753
–96
133
–6 801
–4 320
–8 827
–4 651
–986
274
763
492
976
..
332
941
655
225
383
..
163
181
396
766
..
428
306
044
107
..
749
806
684
444
036
884
017
993
421
270
713
1992
–767
–111
215
–822
–19
449
266
–782
–345
–218
–40
–14
–1 248
12 141
1 420
–681
–248
–248
–456
–312
–1 151
1 397
–555
–49
–235
–7 509
69
–6 911
–2 575
–844
793
568
009
610
..
750
280
868
240
779
113
828
490
773
816
..
829
875
129
338
933
487
261
430
724
981
387
706
467
487
023
890
1993
–923
–49
436
–790
–262
–86
859
271
–760
–534
–200
–29
–13
–540
11 613
1 988
–512
–231
–302
–494
–201
–442
1 849
–483
–145
22
–6 943
3 093
–5 745
297
–815
339
246
364
958
149
427
298
995
181
882
652
263
916
680
035
..
407
330
027
912
290
211
828
432
480
089
592
177
085
728
980
656
1994
–1 040
–32
713
–764
–348
–56
1 387
272
86
–537
–236
–44
122
–893
10 717
3 474
2 815
–372
–319
–393
–410
–61
–573
2 572
–566
–148
360
–8 619
7 101
–6 568
2 987
–1 004
322
080
200
280
199
698
112
165
406
215
844
636
167
476
635
177
263
020
906
261
978
502
184
003
716
934
496
063
309
081
374
613
1995
–1 618
–864
562
–780
–500
–194
2 686
860
506
–513
–149
–48
177
–984
7 279
3 428
4 533
–654
–458
–452
–463
–22
–687
4 116
–738
–313
461
–7 061
8 105
–3 308
5 448
–1 240
288
931
190
419
620
583
262
175
039
044
827
949
769
903
966
728
707
189
640
437
329
912
523
657
840
156
954
569
287
282
960
226
CAGR
1990-96
1996
–1 673
–749
725
61
–671
–257
2 577
1 208
1 888
–405
–249
–51
205
–862
4 137
3 585
5 086
–1 023
–359
–338
–562
–15
–1 518
5 978
–610
–440
1 546
–6 281
10 929
–1 133
7 099
–1 000
898
891
063
365
923
832
070
589
473
077
265
219
570
421
956
512
421
840
292
576
228
968
336
316
612
066
880
357
412
571
383
406
18.4
13.3
32.7
4.7
8.6
–12.3
–13.6
2.1
2.9
9.7
–38.6
–0.8
32.2
–3.2
35.1
–1.6
–28.6
0.6
OECD FTS database.
228
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Table 10.6. Evolution of the trade surplus/deficit per capita for the OECD countries for communications equipment
In US$
Australia
Austria
Belgium-Luxembourg
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD
NAFTA
EU
EFTA
Source:
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
–36.0
40.1
33.1
–20.7
..
12.5
94.6
–4.4
–8.9
–30.0
..
–122.5
–23.3
–33.3
80.5
..
–12.4
–60.6
–90.2
–45.8
..
–30.3
–40.6
130.8
–108.4
–1.3
–13.3
–27.3
–4.9
–23.4
–12.3
–85.3
–36.1
39.1
25.9
–28.5
..
–13.3
34.3
–3.7
–15.1
–28.9
..
–155.7
–3.2
–37.5
89.8
..
–14.5
–64.2
–78.7
–45.3
..
–36.3
–37.0
137.2
–109.2
–1.7
2.3
–26.5
–4.1
–23.9
–12.7
–86.4
–44.4
–14.2
20.7
–28.9
..
–3.8
89.2
4.7
–9.7
–33.5
–21.2
–157.0
–4.1
–21.9
97.7
..
16.4
–45.0
–72.3
–58.1
–11.9
–31.7
–29.2
161.4
–79.7
–0.9
–4.1
–29.0
0.1
–18.5
–7.0
–73.4
–52.8
–6.2
41.7
–27.5
–25.5
–16.7
169.8
4.7
–9.4
–51.6
–19.6
–111.3
–4.0
–9.5
93.3
..
22.6
–33.5
–66.5
–70.5
–12.9
–20.5
–11.2
212.4
–68.7
–2.5
0.4
–26.5
2.9
–15.2
0.8
–70.3
–58.8
–4.0
68.0
–26.3
–33.9
–10.9
272.8
4.7
1.1
–51.6
–23.3
–167.8
34.5
–15.6
85.9
78.1
31.4
–24.2
–90.9
–91.2
–10.7
–6.3
–14.5
293.9
–79.8
–2.5
6.2
–32.6
6.6
–17.1
8.1
–86.0
–90.6
–107.5
53.4
–26.5
–48.8
–37.3
526.0
14.8
6.2
–49.1
–14.8
–182.0
50.1
–17.2
58.2
76.3
49.7
–42.3
–128.8
–104.4
–12.0
–2.3
–17.3
468.4
–103.1
–5.1
8.0
–26.4
7.5
–8.5
14.7
–105.4
–92.7
–92.5
68.6
2.1
–65.5
–49.2
502.7
20.7
23.1
–38.6
–24.8
–189.0
57.8
–15.1
33.0
79.1
54.9
–65.7
–99.7
–77.9
–14.6
–1.6
–38.3
677.9
–84.5
–7.1
26.6
–23.3
10.0
–2.9
19.1
–84.5
CAGR
1990-96
–17.1
12.9
32.1
–4.3
7.5
12.4
–13.8
1.4
1.7
9.3
38.6
1.0
31.5
4.1
32.9
2.6
29.4
0.2
OECD FTS database.
229
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 10.6. Communications equipment trade surplus/deficit per capita, 1996
in US$
Iceland
New Zealand
Australia
Austria
Switzerland
Norway
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Denmark
Greece
Spain
Hungary
United States
Italy
Poland
Turkey
Portugal
Canada
OECD
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Japan
Mexico
Ireland
Belgium-Luxembourg
Korea
Finland
Sweden
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Note: Total exports and imports in 1996 include data from 1995 for SITC 76417 as none was available for 1996.
Source: OECD FTS database.
demonstrating an exports-weighted trade balance. The United States, the United Kingdom and France are
placed upper middle of centre, indicating a balanced trade result. Countries mapped lowest are those with
high levels of imports, such as New Zealand, Iceland and Norway. The graph showing telephone sets looks
quite similar to that showing television receivers and radio receivers. However, Canada, largely due to Nortel,
appears in the centre of the chart, demonstrating a balanced trade performance.
The charts for switching equipment and transmission equipment show a totally different result. The
United States and Germany are mapped on the upper left side. Japan and Sweden are mapped lower centre.
Considering the size of the telecommunication industries of the United States, Germany and France, the lower
amount of imports of switching equipment may be a reflection of the closer national tie between telecommunication service provides and manufacturing industries. The position of Sweden and Finland in transmission
equipment reflects mobile telecommunication manufacturing industries.
230
Several other factors should be taken into account in considering trade patterns. First, flows of patents and
licence fees for the manufacture of communication equipment are quite important in a sector with such
dynamic technological change. Second, a great deal of new growth is occurring in telecommunication software
which is not wholly reflected in the data. Third, liberalisation of telecommunication and broadcasting, and technological innovations are stimulating and creating new services such as Internet and satellite mobile communication. These developments are opening new markets for the communication equipment industry and other
related industries. Fourth, efforts to reduce trade barriers such as the Information Technology Agreement and
mutual recognition agreements will favour an increase in communication trade.
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Figure 10.7. Communications equipment exports and imports in OECD countries
by selected SITC categories
Exports in millions of US$
1 600
Japan
1 400
1 200
Exports in millions of US$
1 600
Radio-broadcasting receivers
1 400
1 200
Mexico
1 000
1 000
800
800
US
600
600
Germany
Korea
400
France UK
200
400
200
Iceland NZ Norway Sweden
Canada
0
0
10
20
0
30
40
50
60
Imports in US$ per capita
Finland
Exports in millions of US$
Exports in millions of US$
3 500
3 500
Mexico
Television receivers
3 000
3 000
2 500
2 500
Korea
Japan
2 000
2 000
UK
1 500
1 500
France
1 000
1 000
US
Germany
500
Finland
Canada
Iceland
0
0
500
Norway
Sweden
NZ
10
0
20
30
40
50
60
Imports in US$ per capita
Exports in millions of US$
Exports in millions of US$
600
600
Telephone sets
Mexico
500
500
400
400
Japan
US
300
300
UK
Canada
Germany
200
200
Korea
France
100
100
Sweden
Finland
0
0
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
2
4
Norway
NZ
6
8
10
Iceland
0
12
14
Imports in US$ per capita
231
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 10.7. Communications equipment exports and imports in OECD countries
by selected SITC categories (cont.)
Exports in millions of US$
1 400
Exports in millions of US$
1 400
Switching equipment
1 200
1 200
Germany
US
1 000
1 000
800
800
France
Sweden
600
600
Japan
400
400
Finland
UK
200
200
Korea
Mexico
0
Norway
NZ
0
2
Iceland
Canada
4
0
6
8
10
12
Imports in $US per capita
Exports in millions of US$
Exports in millions of US$
6 000
6 000
Transmission equipment
US
5 000
5 000
4 000
4 000
Sweden
Germany
3 000
3 000
UK
Finland
2 000
2 000
France
1 000
1 000
Mexico
Japan
Korea
Canada
Iceland Norway
NZ
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
60
70
80
Imports in $US per capita
Source: OECD.
232
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Box 10.1.
What is the impact of the Internet on communication exports?
It is still too early to determine the impact of the Internet on communication equipment trade in the context
of internationally comparable statistics. At the level of firm data, the turnover of many companies specialising in
inter-networking equipment sales is rapidly increasing. For example, sales by Cisco Systems increased from
US$2.2 billion in 1995 to US$4 billion in 1996 and to US$6.4 billion in 1997. These data include significant international sales. Cisco’s international sales, including sales by the company’s subsidiaries, accounted for approximately 43.5 per cent of total sales in fiscal year 1997, 48.2 per cent in 1996 and 41.7 per cent in 1995.
Spectacular increases in trade volumes, such as the indicated by the Cisco example, are captured at an earlier
stage by national trade databases. Data provided by the United States (International Trade Administration Office
of Telecommunications) show very large increases in the volume of categories of communication equipment
related to the Internet. For example, the volume of modem exports more than doubled between 1994 and 1997,
from US$501 million to US$1.025 billion, reflecting demand in OECD countries for high-speed modems (Table 10.7,
Figure 10.8). At the same time, the volume of modem imports mainly from Chinese Taipei, Mexico and China
recorded a significant increase (47 per cent) between 1994 and 1997 (Table 10.8). Exports of switching equipment
from the United States increased by 23 per cent between 1996 and 1997. The most striking increase in this category was in telegraphic switching equipment, which increased by 81 per cent during the same period.
Figure 10.8. Trade of modems with the United States, 1994-97
Exports to OECD Member countries
Exports to world
Imports from OECD Member countries
Imports from world
1 200
1 200
1 000
1 000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
1994
0
1995
1996
1997
Source: OECD.
233
OECD 1999
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 10.7. Exports of modems from the United States
In US$
1994
Canada
Japan
United Kingdom
France
Mexico
Germany
Netherlands
Australia
Korea
Belgium
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Sweden
New Zealand
Switzerland
Norway
Poland
Finland
Austria
Portugal
Turkey
Greece
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Iceland
Luxembourg
Hong Kong, China
Singapore
Brazil
China
Malaysia
Other countries
OECD
World
OECD % share of world
Source:
118
30
74
21
36
34
13
9
1
8
2
3
7
6
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
22
9
4
5
3
58
397
501
355 248
194 591
213 088
575 979
682 788
364 122
260 167
512 577
880 879
241 108
904 066
698 474
876 533
125 782
672 111
682 573
135 428
868 606
894 606
896 202
928 730
414 014
475 188
240 929
138 424
553 446
74 859
177 089
992 626
752 402
459 492
016 918
705 934
200 577
037 607
165 556
79.22
1995
124
113
111
34
28
28
18
12
10
12
2
9
7
8
4
3
4
6
3
3
3
3
2
1
42
14
7
8
6
77
563
720
761 097
643 923
211 842
331 607
600 420
941 831
502 980
995 885
056 524
186 917
544 888
737 089
112 344
683 294
636 302
815 308
422 776
721 877
531 244
758 150
869 486
222 349
684 990
938 425
938 109
275 526
233 654
99 348
473 070
762 168
731 450
618 488
055 241
580 550
458 185
679 152
78.18
1996
249
183
134
107
29
27
14
15
19
17
9
10
7
5
9
4
5
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
2
42
32
13
11
9
75
875
1 060
637 835
826 104
418 414
566 567
275 168
344 633
915 077
982 143
155 943
234 419
581 601
960 158
785 363
813 316
464 496
017 130
207 877
616 991
205 304
435 941
345 743
827 319
031 442
230 835
178 228
911 373
233 468
29 709
334 733
981 561
094 096
093 131
859 739
712 910
232 597
308 767
82.55
1997
269
89
68
169
39
16
24
17
21
12
25
5
6
5
5
4
2
3
3
2
4
2
1
1
2
60
41
17
10
12
75
806
1 025
835 602
694 804
133 301
666 036
322 832
000 021
778 618
204 232
954 388
899 056
371 325
352 172
501 808
722 362
686 705
040 974
451 515
156 650
651 114
674 269
019 858
726 149
748 956
006 509
177 402
642 897
104 900
201 395
099 030
803 692
927 324
428 489
566 036
704 481
725 850
254 902
78.69
Total
1994-97
762
417
387
333
133
106
71
55
53
50
40
29
29
26
21
15
15
14
13
11
11
10
9
9
8
2
167
99
43
35
32
287
2 642
3 307
589 782
359 422
976 645
140 189
881 208
650 607
456 842
694 837
047 734
561 500
401 880
747 893
276 048
344 754
459 614
555 985
217 596
364 124
282 268
764 562
163 817
189 831
940 576
416 698
432 163
383 242
646 881
507 541
899 459
299 823
212 362
157 026
186 950
198 518
454 239
408 377
78.69
OECD.
234
OECD 1999
Trade in Communication Equipment
Table 10.8. Imports of modems into the United States
In US$
1994
Mexico
Canada
Japan
Korea
Sweden
Italy
United Kingdom
Ireland
Denmark
France
Germany
Australia
Belgium
Netherlands
Finland
Switzerland
Austria
Spain
Norway
Portugal
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Poland
Hungary
Luxembourg
Iceland
Turkey
Greece
Chinese Taipei
China
Malaysia
Singapore
Hong Kong
Indonesia
Thailand
Other countries
OECD
World
OECD % share of world
Source:
18
19
7
2
1
2
3
1
156
27
6
13
14
21
1
1
59
302
581
601
101
919
212
226
044
698
998
211
161
995
137
290
34
134
13
2
27
11
754
554
281
290
389
132
291
778
605
818
475
023
063
723
113
458
137
284
561
307
0
0
0
3 922
1 985
0
0
0
280 009
276 789
525 200
603 098
214 524
656 015
914 769
761 179
408 943
640 526
19.63
1995
17
45
20
1
6
2
2
1
2
2
032
261
189
889
896
426
639
954
572
147
280
2 051
92
170
141
14
132
23
6
20
9
5
3
3
105
309
707
494
712
989
515
705
718
358
916
079
445
018
161
856
988
050
0
40 867
1 869
1 771
14 285
0
0
0
0
1 336
0
0
497 634
808 553
176 896
082 395
198 353
021 540
787 795
354 582
821 839
798 201
34.16
1996
42
57
30
5
3
5
3
1
2
598
375
719
740
806
973
813
922
124
763
3 448
163
157
89
151
32
22
28
3
3
226
31
69
15
11
2
1
158
517
572
208
705
350
098
532
401
686
462
462
576
241
828
479
706
407
607
703
060
696
0
3 939
0
0
0
0
0
0
471 044
994 096
315 360
943 397
164 418
108 308
054 906
887 091
942 718
891 750
30.69
1997
79
31
26
8
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
624
361
865
806
388
487
097
560
032
687
119
684
2 814
252
16
81
67
7
45
2
228
54
37
7
14
5
5
3
165
521
741
678
539
194
142
852
113
654
187
361
906
855
006
319
885
184
341
670
411
375
0
2 597
4 335
0
0
0
0
0
480 287
136 437
849 824
522 853
658 099
596 756
020 107
520 835
010 345
800 228
31.62
Total
1994-97
157
153
84
19
12
12
11
10
7
5
5
3
3
743
137
119
57
49
32
12
10
489
1 652
837
599
876
355
303
114
594
136
728
809
010
894
201
803
344
262
103
79
77
19
14
6
4
3
1
1
774
934
237
823
144
221
523
476
170
720
402
137
058
377
692
099
085
524
901
149
285
536
335
922
985
336
0
0
728 974
215 875
867 280
151 743
235 394
382 619
777 577
520 658
183 845
130 705
31.62
OECD.
235
OECD 1999
Chapter 11
COMMUNICATION AID
This chapter provides indicators on communication aid from OECD Member countries to developing countries, based on data provided by OECD countries that are members of the Development Assistance Committee
(DAC).* The OECD’s Development Co-operation Directorate collects data and summarises Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the communication sector.
Lower aid volumes
Since 1992, the total volume of aid in DAC countries has shown a downwards trend. DAC countries reduced
aid allocation by 11 per cent (from US$45.5 billion to US$40.7 billion) between 1992 and 1996, having doubled
their total aid allocations between 1985 and 1992 (Table 11.1, Figure 11.1). Against this backdrop, aid for communication development shows a similar trend. DAC countries reduced aid allocation in communications by
almost half (from US$1.4 billion to US$0.8 billion) between 1992 and 1996, after doubling their total aid allocations (from US$0.6 billion to US$1.4 billion) between 1985 and 1992. In the same period, the share of communication aid increased, peaking at 5.6 per cent in 1988 before declining to below 2 per cent after 1994.
The lower volumes of aid in recent years do not indicate reduced demand for capital to finance development in the communications sector. Rather, the globalisation of the communication industry and policy reforms
have encouraged greater private investment. Key policy changes in the communication sector include liberalisation and privatisation which provide the private sector with opportunities to finance development in
communication infrastructures and services. In countries where private financing is available, donor countries
gladly cede their role to the private sector, in what is generally a profitable and self-sustaining sector of
commerce. The residual aid is given for projects in some developing countries where this is currently not the
case. In addition, ODA is necessary for some countries to assist them in strengthening the technical and administrative capacity of telecommunication authorities in order to provide well-organised telecommunication
infrastructure.
Most ODA flows fall into two categories: ODA grants and ODA loans. The volumes of both ODA grants and
ODA loans show a downwards trend after 1992. The proportion of ODA grants and loans differs across donor
countries. In general, however, ODA grants are allocated to those areas that are regarded as having lower
commercial potential. In the 12 years prior to 1996, ODA grants shared modestly almost one-third of ODA loans
for the purpose of communication. At the same time, ODA grants were a little larger than ODA loans for all
purposes.
Donor countries and organisations
Almost 80 per cent of communication aid in the decade after 1987 was provided by five countries – Japan
(42 per cent), France (18 per cent), Germany (8 per cent), Italy (6 per cent), Canada (5 per cent). The
* The DAC member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom
and the United States.
OECD 1999
237
Communications Outlook 1999
Table 11.1. Leading donors of total aid and communication aid
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
10 year
average
(1987-96)
1996
%
of total
Total aid (million US$)
Japan
United States
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Canada
United Kingdom
Sweden
Other 12 members
All DAC countries
2
8
2
2
952 4
404 7
484 3
075 2
786 1
785 1
1 138 1
909 1
613
2 247 2
22 393 26
420 5
859 7
208 4
739 3
606 1
220 1
239 1
044 1
815
735 3
885 30
714 7
416 7
199 4
240 3
932 2
478 1
346 1
092 1
941 1
177 3
536 34
126 7
162 6
392 4
208 3
548 2
578 1
776 1
480 1
092 1
765 3
129 34
465 7
892 9
628 5
343 4
393 2
540 1
789 1
551 1
332 1
963 5
896 41
251 8
078 9
739 5
681 4
262 2
880 1
838 1
515 1
443 1
357 5
045 43
986 9
402 8
808 6
687 5
256 2
814 1
888 1
837 1
497 1
558 6
732 45
112 8
454 7
557 6
310 4
451 1
943 1
889 1
784 1
866 1
146 5
513 41
935 10 673 11
753 7 724 5
366 6 852 6
816 4 371 4
934 1 838
813 1 728 2
805 1 598 1
608 1 859 1
370 1 396 1
455 5 859 6
856 43 898 41
244 8
614 7
585 5
837 4
807 1
287 2
460 1
724 1
210 1
160 6
929 40
433
352
901
598
150
325
393
848
445
225
669
293
108
51
3
87
284
826
365
95
59
46
21
241
827
0.008
0.024
0.006
0.016
0.004
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.004
0.000
8
7
5
4
1
1
1
1
1
5
39
494
685
703
309
957
839
678
630
359
167
820
21
19
14
11
5
5
4
4
3
13
100
446
84
42
1
19
187
779
489
212
95
75
58
226
1 155
42
18
8
6
5
20
100
0.005
0.019
0.010
0.003
0.000
0.021
0.021
0.018
0.012
0.012
Communication aid (million US$)
Japan
France
Germany
Italy
Canada
Other 16 members
DAC countries, Total
242
132
8
57
27
98
563
258
280
83
98
13
106
838
389
251
83
60
4
85
873
726
380
153
248
102
297
1 906
416
534
88
22
54
131
1 246
519
157
167
45
116
255
1 259
610
219
40
80
9
200
1 158
545
162
78
148
92
346
1 371
584
134
185
94
71
234
1 302
Communication aid as a % of GDP (top 5)
France
Sweden
Japan
Canada
Austria
0.025
0.000
0.018
0.008
0.001
0.038
0.000
0.013
0.004
0.001
0.028
0.013
0.016
0.001
0.001
0.039
0.007
0.025
0.021
0.000
0.055
0.020
0.014
0.010
0.000
0.013
0.032
0.017
0.021
0.000
0.018
0.008
0.018
0.002
0.012
0.029
0.056
0.050
0.031
0.102
0.011
0.020
0.014
0.013
0.001
Note: Includes bilateral ODA (Official Development Assistance) and ODA to regional development banks.
Source:
OECD DAC Database.
Figure 11.1. Total aid and communication aid per year
In million US$
Total aid from DAC countries
Communication aid from DAC countries
Communication aid
2 500
Total aid
50 000
45 000
40 000
2 000
35 000
30 000
1 500
25 000
20 000
1 000
15 000
10 000
500
5 000
0
0
1985
238
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
Communication Aid
United States, the second largest donor country with 19 per cent of total aid, contributes a relatively small portion of this amount to communication aid. France and Sweden the largest donor countries in communication
aid as a percentage of GDP, followed by Japan, Canada and Austria (Table 11.1).
Figure 11.2 shows bilateral communication aid as a percentage of total aid. Japan allocated the largest
share of aid to the communication sector (5.8 per cent), followed by Spain (5.0 per cent) and Italy (4.1 per cent).
These three countries provide relatively large amounts of ODA loans as well as ODA grants.
Figure 11.2. Communication aid as a share of total aid, 1985-96
0
0
rg
rla
ou
itze
Sw
mb
Ire
lan
xe
Lu
No
ark
lgiu
Be
nd
rla
nm
De
alia
the
Ne
Au
str
lan
y
Fin
an
ga
rtu
rm
Ge
Po
ed
Sw
str
Au
na
Ca
nc
Fra
Ita
Sp
pa
Ja
nd
1
d
1
rw
Un
ay
ited
Kin
gd
om
Un
ite
dS
tat
es
Ne
wZ
ea
lan
d
2
m
2
s
3
d
3
l
4
en
4
ia
5
da
5
e
6
ly
6
ain
%
7
n
%
7
Note: Includes bilateral ODA and ODA to regional development banks.
Source: OECD.
Multilateral agencies, including the World Bank and regional development banks, also provide a source of
capital for communication development (Table 11.2). Between 1985 and 1996, for the World Bank Group, the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), whose long-term loans are at the near-market
interest rate, provided US$2 737 million and the International Development Association (IDA), which provides
interest-free loans to poor countries, provided US$520 million to the communication sector. In the same
period, in the case of the regional banks, the African Development Bank provided US$509 million, the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), US$1 291 million, the Inter-American Development Bank, US$26 million, and the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), established in 1991, US$331 million, to the communication sector. Notably, EBRD allocated almost 10 per cent of financing to the communication sector, while
other regional development banks allocated some 2 per cent or less of their financing to the communication
sector (with the exception of ADB, who allocted 4 per cent). EBRD directed its efforts towards financing the
communication sector in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
OECD 1999
239
In millions of US$
Total aid (million US$):
Flow type
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Total
1985-96
Total ODA and other official flows
African Development Bank
OOF loans
African Development Fund
ODA loans
Asian Development Bank
OOF loans
Asian Development Bank Special Funds ODA loans
IBRD
OOF loans
IDA
ODA loans
IDB
ODA loans
IDB
OOF loans
IDB Special Operations Fund
ODA loans
IDB Special Operations Fund
OOF loans
EBRD
Total
621.8
653.9 1 169.2 1 352.9 2 068.9 1 483.6 2 306.7 1 958.3 1 138.1 2 483.0
539.0 676.6 16 451.8
470.8
419.8
837.5
604.1 1 471.4
477.8
782.8 1 013.6 931.0
235.5
55.9 306.2
7 606.4
1 103.3 1 289.2 1 606.3 2 010.7 1 667.7 2 426.3 3 091.5 3 746.2 3 020.8 2 887.0 3 590.3 3 637.6 30 076.9
498.7
779.4 1 228.3 1 307.6 1 268.3 1 537.3
919.5 1 259.9 942.2
943.2
851.0 1 403.9 12 939.2
11 896.9 14 447.8 14 644.3 12 301.8 16 408.3 13 530.7 15 763.0 12 704.8 8 768.6 12 732.9 13 938.7 9 109.4 156 247.1
3 713.7 3 034.8 4 241.9 4 760.1 4 800.6 6 199.0 6 826.8 5 996.2 5 510.2 7 188.9 5 509.1 6 078.6 63 859.9
18.5
18.5
2 528.2 2 483.9 1997.3 2 541.0
583.5 3 056.5 4 473.7 5 966.5 3 496.4 1 629.4 6 693.2 4 454.9 39 904.5
197.6
207.4
329.1
289.1
132.5
566.9
418.8
635.0 227.5
387.0
640.5 457.6
4 489.0
1.5
1.7
3.2
724.8 1 267.2 1 442.9
3 434.9
21 050 23 316 26 054 25 167 28 401 29 278 34 583 33 280 24 035 28 487 31 819 26 127 331 596.4
ODA and other official flows to the communications sector
African Development Bank
Communication aid (million US$):
Asian Development Bank
Asian Development Bank Special Funds
IBRD
IDA
IDB
EBRD
DAC countries, Total
Communications as a % of all sectors
Source:
OECD, EBRD.
OOF loans
ODA loans
OOF loans
ODA loans
OOF loans
ODA loans
OOF loans
72.60
41.35
2.75
69.00
14.53
39.12
25.58
135.00
149.49
17.71
115.00
47.28
592.20
24.50
17.42
270.00
18.00
360.00
69.80
13.75 81.72
40.53 19.70
185.00 379.10
0.49
375.00 418.00
55.00 97.08
669.77 995.60
85.0
452.82
125.2 121.1
485.20 281.10
171.60
47.90
25.90
470.00
27.80
19.00
118.00
7.51
53.10
145.90
99.60
358.49
551.45
179.58
324.51
946.19
69.80
0.47
1.54
2.12
0.71
1.14
3.23
0.20
27.00
2.01
4.14
62.41
145.00
1.59
15.00
1.52
1.08
363.25
145.40
1 218.70
72.69
2 736.90
519.98
25.90
331.3
5 414.11
1.63
Communications Outlook 1999
240
Table 11.2. ODA and other official flows from multilateral organisations
OECD 1999
Communication Aid
Recipients of communication aid
The proportion of aid for the communication sector is shown in Figure 11.3. Between 1990 and 1997, almost
half of communication aid was received by Far East Asia (45 per cent), followed by Africa (South of the Sahara)
and South and Central Asia. Far East Asia has a much larger share of communication aid than its share of total
ODA flows. In 1996, however, communication aid to this region was reduced, increasing the relative share of
Africa (South of the Sahara) and South and Central Asia.
Figure 11.3. Communication aid by destination region, as a percentage of total communication aid
from DAC countries
South America
South and Central Asia
Oceania
North and Central America
Middle East
Far East Asia
Europe
Africa – South of Sahara
Africa – North of Sahara
%
100
%
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1990
Source:
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
OECD CRS database.
Figure 11.4 shows the share of communication aid from donor countries by recipient continent. Japan is the
largest donor country to Asia (51 per cent), followed by France (11 per cent) and Germany (9 per cent). Japan
(29 per cent) and France (23 per cent) are the largest donor countries to Africa. In contrast, Italy (38 per cent)
and Spain (22 per cent) are the largest donor countries to Central and South America.
DAC designed a list of aid recipients to help to measure and classify aid and other resource flows originating from DAC countries. Figure 11.5 shows communication aid by recipient groups according to the DAC list of
aid recipients. Between 1990 and 1996, more than 90 per cent of communication aid was received by countries
in which GDP per capita was below US$3 035 in 1995. Almost 80 per cent of total aid was received by countries
belonging to the same category. The share of each country group has varied significantly on a yearly basis but,
in 1996, DAC countries allocated more communication aid to the least developed countries and other lowincome countries, in which GDP per capita was below US$765 in 1995.
OECD 1999
241
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 11.4. Communication aid by region and by donor country, 1990-97
Communication aid to Asia
(64% of total)
Communication aid to Africa
(28% of total)
Other DAC
Other DAC
Sweden
Australia
Japan
Denmark
Japan
Sweden
United Kingdom
Canada
Canada
Spain
Germany
Germany
United States
France
France
Communication aid to America
(8% of total)
Italy
Other DAC
Germany
Canada
Spain
France
Japan
Source: OECD.
Application of communication aid
242
Communication aid includes a variety of types of aid related to communication, ranging from planning and
programme aid to communication project aid to build telecommunication networks and broadcasting systems.
DAC countries divide data of communication aid into three main groups:
– communication policy and management;
– radio/television/print media;
– telecommunication.
Between 1985 and 1996, around 84 per cent of all communication aid was committed to telecommunication projects. However, the telecommunication sector’s share has declined since 1991. In 1996, telecommunication projects accounted for about 70 per cent of communication aid, while 20 per cent was allocated to
communication policy management and 10 per cent to radio and broadcasting projects. Austria and the
United Kingdom provide the greatest share of their communication aid for radio and broadcasting projects.
Reflecting the sector’s commercial potential, ODA loans are used four times as much as ODA grants in the
telecommunication sector. By way of contrast, ODA grants are used more than twice as much as ODA loans for
the purpose of communications policy and administration management. For radio, television and the print
media, ODA grants are a little higher than ODA loans.
OECD 1999
Communication Aid
Figure 11.5. Aid by DAC country group
Other countries
%
Upper middle income countries
Lower middle income countries
Other low income countries
Least developed countries
Communication aid
%
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
1990
%
100
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Overall
1990-96
Total aid
%
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1990
Source: OECD.
OECD 1999
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Overall
1990-96
243
Communications Outlook 1999
Figure 11.6. Communication aid by DAC aid recipients and by type of communication aid, 1990-97
Communication aid to least developed countries
(15.1% of total)
Telecommunications
75%
Communication aid to other low income countries
(36.9% of total)
Telecommunications
91%
Communications
policy and admin.
mgmt. 13%
Communications
policy and admin.
mgmt. 5%
Radio/TV/print
media
4%
Radio/TV/print
media
12%
Communication aid to lower middle income countries
(38.0% of total)
Telecommunications
78%
Communications
policy and admin.
mgmt. 4%
Radio/TV/print
media
18%
Source: OECD.
In considering the relationship between recipients and applications, it is clear that the telecommunication
sector receives the largest amount of aid for each group of countries categorised in the DAC list. Telecommunication has a dominant share in communication aid to other low-income countries (91 per cent) and radio/TV/
print media has a larger share in communication aid to the lower-middle-income countries. Communication
policy and management has its largest share in communication aid to the least-developed countries, although
it is still a fairly small segment of total communication aid in each category (Figure 11.6).
Associated financing
244
Some communication aid projects are partly financed by Associated Financing (AF), the term used to
describe export credits. This section provides an overview of how much additional financing is provided for
communication projects via export credits. An export credit is a commercial loan designed to assist in financing
exports of communication equipment. Normally, the donor country guarantees repayment of the loan by the
recipient country to the commercial organisation undertaking the export project.
Between 1985 and 1996, 15 per cent of communication aid projects had additional export credit financing
provided by donor countries. The OECD’s CRS Database indicates that there were 311 AF projects out of a total
of 2 041 (Tables 11.3 and 11.4). For projects using AF, the amount of export credit is higher than the total of
grants and loans. The available reported data indicate that most export credits come from France, followed by
Sweden and Canada. Spain and Sweden recorded the highest rate of usage of AF for communication projects
(64 per cent in the case of Spain, 45 per cent for Sweden).
OECD 1999
Communication Aid
Table 11.3. Export credits for associated financing of communication projects
Number
of projects
with AF
Communication
projects
1985
1986
Of which
122
148
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Of which
125
174
144
155
142
190
161
230
216
1996
Total
Of which
232
2 039
Source:
% AF
20
23
22
1
15
28
22
39
34
44
21
19
28
27
1
18
311
289
22
16
16
12
16
15
25
24
23
13
8
13
8
15
Grants and loans
Export credits
75
105
104
1
69
219
143
344
263
260
141
111
148
146
2
51
1 929
1 851
78
..
..
138
..
126
297
195
372
265
394
183
136
..
168
..
52
..
2 326
..
OECD CRS Database.
Table 11.4.
Export credits for associated financing of communication projects, by country, 1985-96
Donor country
Communication
projects
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Of which
96
6
124
251
85
64
440
Germany
Italy
Of which
51
95
Japan
Netherlands
Of which
New Zealand
Norway
Communication aid (million US$):
268
186
6
69
23
Finance of AF projects (million US$)
Number
of projects
with AF
% AF
11
11
90
163
23
40
19
16
68
272
89
417
9
106
90
16
14
24
23
653
600
53
37
..
628
..
5
4
1
5
38
23
15
..
10
..
10
6
4
5
34
25
9
..
27
..
24
35
69
70
95
1
..
..
Grants and loans
1
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
DAC countries, Total
Total
Of which
Source:
Finance of AF projects
(million US$)
OECD CRS Database.
OECD 1999
2
42
86
32
60
76
2 039
Export credits
27
39
1
16
64
45
3
27
248
214
5
214
253
426
9
172
311
289
22
15
1 929
1 851
78
..
2 326
..
245
STATISTICAL ANNEX
OECD 1999
Table A.1.
Average annual exchange rates
In national currency units per US$
1980
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
0.88
0.87
0.99
1.11
1.14
1.43
1.50
1.43
12.94
15.93
17.06
17.96
20.01
20.69
15.27
12.64
29.24
37.13
45.69
51.13
57.78
59.38
44.67
37.33
1.17
1.20
1.23
1.23
1.29
1.37
1.39
1.33
14.26
13.25
13.73
14.15
16.60
17.18
15.00
13.68
5.64
7.12
8.33
9.15
10.36
10.60
8.09
6.84
3.73
4.32
4.82
5.57
6.01
6.20
5.07
4.40
4.23
5.43
6.57
7.62
8.74
8.98
6.93
6.01
1.82
2.26
2.43
2.55
2.85
2.94
2.17
1.80
42.62
55.41
66.80
88.06 112.72 138.12 139.98 135.43
32.53
34.31
36.63
42.67
48.04
50.12
45.83
46.97
4.80
7.22
12.35
24.84
31.69
41.51
41.10
38.68
0.49
0.62
0.70
0.80
0.92
0.95
0.74
0.67
856.45 1 136.76 1 352.51 1 518.85 1 756.96 1 909.44 1 490.81 1 296.07 1
226.74 220.54 249.08 237.51 237.52 238.54 168.52 144.64
607.43 681.03 731.08 775.75 805.98 870.02 881.45 822.57
29.24
37.13
45.69
51.13
57.78
59.38
44.67
37.33
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.12
0.17
0.26
0.61
1.38
1.99
2.49
2.67
2.85
3.21
3.32
2.45
2.03
1.03
1.15
1.33
1.50
1.73
2.02
1.91
1.70
4.94
5.74
6.45
7.30
8.16
8.60
7.39
6.74
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
50.06
61.55
79.47 110.78 146.39 170.39 149.59 140.88
71.70
92.32 109.86 143.43 160.76 170.04 140.05 123.48
4.23
5.06
6.28
7.67
8.27
8.60
7.12
6.34
1.67
1.96
2.03
2.10
2.35
2.46
1.80
1.49
76.04
111.22 162.55 225.46 366.68 521.98 674.51 857.22 1
0.43
0.50
0.57
0.66
0.75
0.78
0.68
0.61
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1988
1989
1.28
1.27
12.35
13.23
36.77
39.40
1.23
1.18
14.36
15.05
6.73
7.31
4.18
4.29
5.96
6.38
1.76
1.88
141.86 162.42
50.41
59.07
43.01
57.04
0.66
0.71
301.62 1 372.09 1
128.15 137.96
731.47 671.46
36.77
39.40
2.27
2.46
1.98
2.12
1.53
1.67
6.52
6.90
0.04
0.14
143.95 157.46
116.49 118.38
6.13
6.45
1.46
1.64
422.35 2 121.68 2
0.56
0.61
1.00
1.00
1990
1991
1.28
1.28
11.37
11.68
33.42
34.15
1.17
1.15
17.95
29.48
6.19
6.40
3.82
4.04
5.45
5.64
1.62
1.66
158.51 182.27
63.21
74.74
58.28
59.00
0.61
0.62
198.10 1 240.61 1
144.79 134.71
707.76 733.35
33.42
34.15
2.81
3.02
1.82
1.87
1.67
1.73
6.26
6.48
0.95
1.06
142.55 144.48
101.93 103.91
5.92
6.05
1.39
1.43
608.64 4 171.82 6
0.56
0.56
1.00
1.00
1992
1993
1.36
1.47
10.99
11.63
32.15
34.60
1.21
1.29
28.17
29.20
6.04
6.48
4.48
5.71
5.29
5.66
1.56
1.65
190.62
229.14
78.99
91.93
57.55
67.65
0.59
0.68
232.41 1 572.00 1
126.65
111.20
780.65
802.67
32.15
34.56
3.09
3.11
1.76
1.86
1.86
1.85
6.21
7.09
1.36
1.81
135.00
160.65
102.38
127.24
5.82
7.78
1.41
1.48
872.42 10 984.70 29
0.57
0.67
1.00
1.00
1994
1995
1.37
1.35
11.42
10.08
33.46
29.50
1.37
1.37
28.79
26.54
6.36
5.60
5.22
4.37
5.55
4.99
1.62
1.43
242.60
231.60
105.16
125.70
69.94
64.77
0.67
0.62
612.44 1 629.00 1
102.21
94.10
803.44
771.27
33.46
29.50
3.38
6.42
1.82
1.61
1.69
1.52
7.06
6.34
2.27
2.42
165.99
149.90
133.96
124.70
7.72
7.13
1.37
1.18
608.70 45 768.00 81
0.65
0.63
1.00
1.00
1996
1997
1.28
10.58
30.98
1.36
27.15
5.80
4.59
5.12
1.51
240.70
152.60
66.69
0.63
543.00 1
108.80
839.00 1
30.98
7.60
1.69
1.45
6.46
2.70
154.20
126.70
6.71
1.24
300.00 151
0.64
1.00
1.35
12.20
35.76
1.39
31.70
6.60
5.19
5.84
1.73
272.90
186.60
70.97
0.66
703.00
121.00
477.00
35.76
7.92
1.95
1.51
7.07
3.28
175.20
146.40
7.64
1.45
600.00
0.61
1.00
OECD Main Economic Indicators.
Statistical Annex
249
Purchasing power parities
In national currency units per US$
1980
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.23
1.29
1.35
1.39
15.67
15.13 15.02
14.90
14.91
14.84
14.88
14.71
14.39
14.16
40.30
38.55 38.84
39.35
39.54
40.50
40.96
40.49
39.82
39.91
1.27
1.27
1.31
1.31
1.30
1.28
1.29
1.31
1.31
1.32
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
8.38
8.36
8.72
8.98
9.07
9.14
9.33
9.45
9.41
9.48
5.11
5.14
5.28
5.49
5.71
5.81
5.93
6.01
6.19
6.29
5.62
5.70
6.02
6.32
6.49
6.64
6.82
6.80
6.75
6.69
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
41.26
44.79 52.81
60.21
69.23
78.69
90.27
99.83
111.14
121.81
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
7.62
10.35 14.96
25.22
30.24
38.36
46.99
54.35
64.30
73.77
0.55
0.59
0.64
0.68
0.69
0.70
0.73
0.72
0.72
0.73
825.86 891.42 983.54 1 083.55 1 155.61 1 216.94 1 280.85 1 315.64 1 353.03 1 377.54 1
255.89 241.46 231.67
225.65
221.39
218.40
216.91
210.16
203.80
199.17
423.35 451.34 454.07
457.27
461.14
466.14
475.84
483.74
497.12
501.50
41.26
40.08 41.87
42.81
42.72
42.50
42.63
41.64
40.39
40.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.24
0.55
1.07
1.29
2.82
2.69
2.67
2.61
2.53
2.49
2.43
2.34
2.28
2.21
0.97
1.01
1.06
1.09
1.12
1.24
1.43
1.55
1.62
1.63
8.47
8.67
9.02
9.24
9.39
9.54
9.23
9.55
9.65
9.78
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
32.77
34.93 39.74
47.39
56.48
66.42
78.09
83.22
89.10
95.94
70.53
71.97 77.29
82.73
88.27
91.85
99.55
101.99
103.79
106.47
7.05
7.00
7.15
7.53
7.74
7.97
8.32
8.43
8.65
8.95
2.42
2.32
2.34
2.30
2.27
2.25
2.26
2.25
2.23
2.20
52.27
68.25 82.49
99.69
141.25
208.84
277.25
358.57
584.83
982.99 1
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.58
0.59
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
OECD Analytical Database.
1990
1991
1.39
1.37
14.04
14.17
39.45
39.15
1.30
1.29
..
7.62
9.39
9.18
6.38
6.30
6.61
6.51
..
2.09
140.80
161.19
26.28
32.84
82.63
85.73
0.69
0.67
421.00 1 462.41 1
195.30
193.06
528.29
560.04
39.68
39.47
1.59
1.88
2.17
2.18
1.61
1.56
9.73
9.60
0.30
0.47
103.70
109.95
109.50
110.38
9.34
9.95
2.20
2.23
491.00 2 280.18 3
0.60
0.63
1.00
1.00
1992
1993
1.37
1.35
13.99
13.86
37.82
37.30
1.28
1.26
8.32
9.43
9.15
8.79
6.36
6.09
6.42
6.57
2.07
2.10
170.22
184.34
37.29
43.54
83.14
82.93
0.64
0.65
460.02 1 533.83 1
188.10
184.31
571.35
584.72
38.92
39.62
1.73
1.84
2.14
2.13
1.51
1.51
8.98
8.93
0.60
0.76
115.67
116.96
114.87
116.96
9.81
9.83
2.16
2.13
667.28 5 989.79 12
0.62
0.64
1.00
1.00
1994
1995
1996
1997
1.34
13.92
37.29
1.25
10.35
8.71
6.15
6.62
2.07
196.26
51.46
84.08
0.64
533.35 1
180.71
603.72
40.00
1.95
2.12
1.50
9.12
1.00
118.14
121.31
9.90
2.10
096.40 22
0.65
1.00
1.34
14.07
37.65
1.19
10.84
8.45
5.89
6.49
2.02
203.93
61.18
76.19
0.65
588.73 1
175.59
623.52
39.84
2.63
2.08
1.47
9.37
1.14
119.57
125.10
9.77
2.02
404.90 39
0.67
1.00
1.34
14.04
37.41
1.19
11.69
8.33
5.89
6.57
2.03
213.90
72.55
76.76
0.64
631.97 1
170.92
630.54
38.96
3.33
2.06
1.48
9.54
1.36
122.39
126.15
9.68
2.05
274.70 70
0.67
1.00
1.30
13.50
36.60
1.17
12.40
8.31
5.84
6.51
2.00
224.00
84.30
77.90
0.67
593.00
163.00
631.00
39.60
4.41
2.05
1.47
9.21
1.53
123.00
124.00
9.61
2.01
477.00
0.65
1.00
Communications Outlook 1999
250
Table A.2.
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table A.3.
Consumer price index
1990 = 100
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
45.90
70.80
64.50
56.20
..
56.40
52.10
54.30
77.30
17.60
36.10
5.60
47.70
39.60
81.60
54.60
65.00
0.70
78.60
36.30
47.90
0.45
20.60
41.10
48.00
71.60
2.00
53.00
63.10
50.30
75.60
69.00
63.20
..
63.00
58.30
61.60
82.20
21.90
37.80
8.40
57.40
47.30
85.60
66.22
70.20
0.80
83.90
41.90
54.50
0.54
24.70
47.00
53.80
76.30
3.00
59.30
69.60
55.90
79.70
75.00
70.00
..
69.30
63.90
68.90
86.50
26.50
40.40
12.60
67.20
55.00
88.00
70.84
76.80
1.30
88.80
48.60
60.70
1.09
30.20
53.80
58.40
80.60
4.00
64.40
73.90
61.50
82.40
80.80
74.10
..
74.10
69.30
75.50
89.40
31.80
43.30
23.30
74.30
63.20
89.60
73.27
83.40
2.70
91.30
52.20
65.80
1.33
37.90
60.40
63.60
83.00
5.00
67.30
76.20
64.00
87.00
85.90
77.30
..
78.80
74.20
81.10
91.50
37.70
47.00
30.00
80.70
69.90
91.70
74.93
88.10
4.50
94.30
55.40
69.90
1.53
48.80
67.20
68.70
85.40
8.00
70.70
79.50
68.30
89.80
90.10
80.40
..
82.50
78.50
85.90
93.40
44.90
50.20
39.80
85.10
75.90
93.50
76.78
91.70
7.10
96.40
63.90
73.90
1.76
58.40
73.10
73.70
88.30
12.00
75.00
82.30
74.50
91.30
91.30
83.70
..
85.50
80.80
88.20
93.30
55.30
52.90
48.20
88.30
80.60
94.10
78.55
92.00
13.30
96.50
72.40
79.20
2.07
65.30
79.50
76.90
89.00
16.00
77.60
83.90
80.80
92.60
92.70
87.40
..
89.00
84.20
90.90
93.50
64.30
57.50
56.80
91.10
84.30
94.20
81.32
92.00
30.70
95.80
83.80
86.10
2.59
71.40
83.70
80.10
90.30
22.00
80.80
87.00
86.70
94.40
93.80
90.90
..
93.00
88.40
93.40
94.70
73.00
66.50
71.50
93.00
88.50
94.90
87.13
93.30
65.80
96.50
89.20
91.90
4.15
78.30
87.80
85.00
92.00
38.00
84.70
90.50
93.20
96.80
96.70
95.50
..
97.40
94.30
96.70
97.40
83.00
77.90
86.30
96.80
94.30
97.00
92.10
96.40
79.00
97.60
94.20
96.00
14.58
88.20
93.70
90.60
94.90
62.00
91.30
94.90
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
103.20
103.30
103.20
105.60
156.80
102.40
104.30
103.20
103.60
119.50
134.80
106.80
103.20
106.50
103.30
109.30
103.10
122.70
103.10
102.60
103.40
176.44
110.20
105.90
109.70
105.90
166.00
105.90
104.20
104.20
107.50
105.70
107.20
174.20
104.50
107.40
105.70
108.90
138.40
166.00
110.80
106.40
112.10
105.00
116.10
106.40
141.70
106.40
103.60
105.80
256.43
120.60
112.20
112.60
110.10
282.00
109.80
107.40
106.10
111.40
108.60
109.20
210.40
105.90
109.70
107.90
113.70
158.40
203.30
115.30
107.90
116.80
106.30
121.70
110.20
155.50
109.20
105.00
108.20
351.05
128.70
117.40
117.80
113.80
469.00
111.50
110.60
108.10
114.70
111.20
109.40
231.50
108.00
110.90
109.70
116.80
175.60
241.70
117.00
110.50
121.40
107.10
129.40
112.60
166.30
112.20
106.80
109.80
467.67
135.70
122.90
120.70
114.70
962.00
114.30
113.40
113.20
117.30
112.80
111.70
252.40
110.20
112.00
111.60
119.00
191.30
310.10
119.00
113.20
127.90
107.00
135.10
114.80
224.50
114.40
110.80
112.50
599.99
141.30
128.60
124.20
116.80
1 819.00
118.20
116.60
116.10
119.40
115.20
113.50
274.70
112.60
112.70
113.80
120.80
206.90
382.90
121.70
115.20
132.80
107.10
141.80
116.40
301.70
116.70
113.40
113.90
719.43
145.70
133.20
125.20
117.70
3 280.00
121.10
120.00
116.40
121.00
117.10
115.30
297.90
115.00
114.00
115.20
122.90
218.40
453.00
123.90
116.80
135.20
109.00
148.10
118.00
364.00
119.20
114.70
116.80
826.45
149.10
135.80
126.30
118.40
6 092.00
124.90
122.90
OECD Main Economic Indicators.
Statistical Annex
251
Total population
In thousands
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Australia
14 569 14 743 14 942 15 164 15 399
Austria
7 549
7 544
7 541
7 542
7 547
Belgium
9 852
9 853
9 852
9 851
9 852
Canada
24 593 24 846 25 096 25 355 25 634
Czech Republic 10 283 10 307 10 316 10 314 10 309
Denmark
5 123
5 125
5 123
5 119
5 115
Finland
4 780
4 801
4 826
4 853
4 879
France
53 880 54 115 54 360 54 618 54 888
Germany
78 304 78 120 77 918 77 741 77 645
Greece
9 643
9 726
9 789
9 839
9 884
Hungary
10 707 10 705 10 686 10 655 10 618
Iceland
228
231
233
236
239
Ireland
3 401
3 442
3 480
3 514
3 538
Italy
56 434 56 541 56 619 56 676 56 724
Japan
116 807 117 708 118 566 119 377 120 136
Korea
38 124 38 681 39 240 39 789 40 314
Luxembourg
364
364
364
365
365
Mexico
67 570 69 192 70 784 72 354 73 912
Netherlands
14 144 14 219 14 287 14 352 14 419
New Zealand
3 113
3 131
3 157
3 188
3 219
Norway
4 086
4 099
4 111
4 124
4 138
Poland
35 574 35 912 36 259 36 600 36 919
Portugal
9 766
9 842
9 885
9 901
9 904
Spain
37 542 37 802 38 005 38 168 38 318
Sweden
8 310
8 319
8 323
8 325
8 333
Switzerland
6 319
6 342
6 380
6 427
6 481
Turkey
44 438 45 515 46 674 47 890 49 123
United Kingdom 56 330 56 351 56 380 56 427 56 504
United States 230 406 232 597 234 847 237 149 239 488
OECD
962 239 970 173 978 043 985 913 993 844 1
Source:
OECD Labour Force Statistics.
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
15
7
9
25
10
5
4
55
77
9
10
15
7
9
26
10
5
4
55
77
9
10
16
7
9
26
10
5
4
55
78
10
10
16
7
9
27
10
5
4
56
78
10
10
16
7
9
27
10
5
4
56
78
10
10
16
7
9
27
10
5
4
56
79
10
10
17
7
9
28
10
5
5
57
79
10
10
17
7
10
28
10
5
5
57
80
10
10
17
7
10
28
10
5
5
57
80
10
10
17
7
10
29
10
5
5
57
81
10
10
17
8
10
29
10
5
5
58
81
10
10
18
8
10
29
10
5
5
58
81
10
10
18
8
10
29
10
5
5
58
82
10
9
3
56
120
40
75
14
3
4
37
9
38
8
6
50
56
241
001
641
558
857
942
305
114
902
170
668
934
579
241
552
771
837
806
367
465
492
247
153
203
904
474
350
536
345
618
855
886 1
3
56
121
41
77
14
3
4
37
9
38
8
6
51
56
244
010
890
573
867
282
305
114
921
467
828
989
540
244
553
821
483
259
368
015
572
270
169
448
903
642
379
592
550
774
238
056 1
3
56
122
41
78
14
3
4
37
9
38
8
6
52
56
246
018
147
593
881
651
306
117
937
776
109
047
499
247
542
873
078
681
371
561
659
290
186
656
898
816
416
649
741
967
640
334 1
3
56
122
42
80
14
3
4
37
9
38
8
6
53
57
249
026
404
621
900
036
308
122
952
092
485
106
456
249
526
925
620
080
373
109
752
310
204
832
890
987
461
708
905
178
074
665 1
3
56
123
42
81
14
3
4
37
9
39
8
6
55
57
251
034
653
658
923
421
308
129
968
408
915
165
412
252
511
976
106
473
377
663
850
333
223
984
880
142
510
770
027
382
559
978 1
3
57
123
42
83
14
3
4
38
9
39
8
6
56
57
254
043
888
705
951
791
306
140
986
718
365
220
365
255
503
023
537
869
381
226
952
360
241
119
869
272
559
834
098
561
106
200 1
3
57
123
43
84
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
6
57
57
256
051
104
764
982
144
301
154
009
019
827
272
316
258
503
067
911
273
386
801
057
394
260
238
856
376
608
901
109
708
722
320 1
3
57
124
43
86
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
6
58
57
259
059
304
832
018
481
294
171
034
311
303
322
266
260
511
108
233
680
391
386
166
433
278
341
845
458
658
970
065
827
389
335 1
3
57
124
44
87
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
7
58
57
262
067
493
905
056
802
285
189
060
591
771
369
215
263
523
145
520
091
396
976
276
476
297
427
834
522
706
038
986
923
054
189 1
3
57
124
44
89
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
7
59
58
264
074
679
978
093
109
275
207
084
856
207
413
162
266
536
177
793
501
402
564
382
519
314
499
824
577
750
104
903
005
646
825 1
3
57
125
44
91
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
7
60
58
267
082
866
045
127
402
263
223
107
104
594
454
106
269
546
204
068
909
407
145
482
561
332
557
815
627
788
166
838
079
115
199 1
3
57
125
45
92
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
7
61
58
269
089
057
106
159
680
251
237
126
333
922
490
049
271
554
226
351
314
412
718
575
602
348
601
808
674
819
224
797
144
444
292 1
3
57
125
45
94
15
3
4
38
9
39
8
7
62
58
271
092
250
161
188
943
237
248
142
542
190
522
990
274
559
241
638
717
417
281
661
641
364
635
802
717
844
276
774
200
648
208
Communications Outlook 1999
252
Table A.4.
OECD 1999
OECD 1999
Table A.5.
Households
In thousands
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Source:
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
4
2
3
8
4
2
3
8
4
2
3
8
5
2
3
8
5
2
3
8
5
2
3
8
5
2
3
8
5
2
3
9
5
2
3
9
5
2
3
9
5
3
3
9
668
764
608
100
..
2 069
1 782
19 002
24 670
2 850
3 719
50
911
18 448
35 824
7 969
128
12 075
5 006
1 003
1 524
..
2 921
10 586
3 498
2 450
8 522
19 949
80 776
2
1
19
25
2
18
36
8
12
5
1
1
2
10
3
2
8
20
82
800
775
635
282
..
075
800
212
100
988
..
..
920
632
347
238
130
421
105
010
540
..
962
700
500
782
750
100
368
2
1
19
25
3
18
36
8
12
5
1
1
3
10
3
2
9
20
83
900
800
660
520
..
089
825
806
350
034
..
..
930
800
859
591
131
779
215
020
560
..
021
800
560
826
000
300
527
2
1
20
25
3
18
37
8
13
5
1
1
3
10
3
2
9
20
83
000
825
685
759
..
109
850
053
380
081
..
53
940
950
000
657
132
147
321
030
580
..
088
900
590
872
250
500
918
2
1
20
25
3
3
19
37
8
13
5
1
1
11
3
11
3
2
9
20
85
100
850
710
850
..
128
860
260
550
127
809
77
950
100
980
923
134
525
415
040
600
692
138
050
620
918
500
700
407
2
1
20
25
3
3
19
37
9
13
5
1
1
11
3
11
3
2
9
20
86
200
875
735
950
..
142
888
472
720
173
800
85
960
250
980
571
135
914
522
072
620
797
177
129
670
964
730
900
789
2
1
20
26
3
3
19
38
9
14
5
1
1
11
3
11
3
3
10
21
88
300
900
760
992
..
205
900
671
640
251
784
86
970
400
000
900
137
315
711
090
640
854
191
157
688
023
000
100
458
2
1
21
26
3
3
19
39
10
14
5
1
1
11
3
11
3
3
10
21
89
450
925
785
150
..
224
925
254
218
308
769
86
980
600
000
300
138
727
814
100
660
912
229
190
690
067
250
300
479
2
1
21
26
3
3
19
39
10
15
5
1
1
11
3
11
3
3
10
21
91
600
950
810
300
..
246
950
499
500
350
750
90
990
700
500
700
140
150
935
112
680
970
251
216
725
110
500
500
066
750
975
835
450
..
2 265
1975
21 704
26 750
3 400
3 800
90
1 000
19 900
40 000
11 000
141
15 586
5 955
1 133
1 700
12 124
3 273
11 239
3 743
3 156
10 750
21 700
92 830
2
2
21
34
3
3
1
20
40
11
16
5
1
1
12
3
11
3
3
11
21
93
900
000
860
624
..
288
000
911
000
450
890
93
010
000
670
355
143
035
974
176
751
183
296
260
761
205
000
900
347
1991
6
3
3
9
3
2
2
22
34
3
4
1
20
41
11
16
6
1
1
12
3
11
3
3
11
22
94
050
025
890
873
983
309
010
120
701
501
100
95
067
831
000
659
144
667
103
200
780
200
318
279
780
296
500
036
312
1992
6
3
3
10
3
2
2
22
35
3
3
1
19
42
11
17
6
1
1
12
3
11
3
3
11
23
95
200
030
949
122
980
325
218
160
700
619
900
92
089
948
000
971
147
152
216
220
800
406
189
753
830
355
750
164
669
1993
6
3
4
10
3
2
2
22
36
3
3
1
21
42
12
17
6
1
1
12
3
11
3
3
12
23
96
350
058
007
371
982
339
243
398
230
679
654
93
094
179
500
291
149
654
285
240
830
517
220
928
915
386
047
407
426
1994
6
3
4
11
3
2
2
22
36
3
3
1
21
43
12
18
6
1
1
12
3
12
3
3
13
23
97
500
096
044
051
975
358
262
632
669
740
803
94
130
074
000
620
150
174
375
250
835
800
244
076
957
439
342
649
107
1995
6
3
4
11
3
2
2
22
36
3
3
1
21
44
12
18
6
1
1
13
3
12
3
3
13
23
98
645
131
081
244
970
374
281
866
938
801
971
95
166
168
000
958
151
500
465
260
845
050
268
224
999
493
410
891
990
1996
6
3
4
11
3
2
2
22
36
3
3
1
21
44
13
19
6
1
1
13
3
12
4
3
13
23
101
800
151
095
600
961
332
288
989
957
804
965
96
150
192
192
305
152
400
488
252
850
055
240
243
005
543
446
732
711
1997
6 880
..
..
..
3 702
..
2 221
23 700
37 630
..
3 768
..
..
..
..
13 661
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
101 108
ITU.
Statistical Annex
253
OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
PRINTED IN FRANCE
(93 1999 02 1 P) ISBN 92-64-17013-8 – No. 50483 1999
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
274
Размер файла
2 208 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа