RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN ASIA-PACIFIC Pan-Asian Rural Communications Summit Hongkong, 24-26 October 1994 Michael Minges Telecommunications Development Bureau International Telecommunication Union
1.
The rural market
The Asian economic miracle conjures up images of skyscrapers and bustling cities.1 Two of the so-called four dragons that epitomise the region's rapid economic growth, Hongkong and Singapore, are city-states while the other two, Taiwan-China and the Republic of Korea are also relatively urbanized. However the dragons are rare exceptions in the world's most rural region.2 Although urbanisation is growing, well over half of the Asian population remains rural. Most of Asia's heavily populated countries are over 70 per cent rural including Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam. Despite export-driven economic growth, agriculture (including forestry, hunting and fishing) remains the livelihood of the majority of Asia's inhabitants. The economic impact of the agricultural sector is significant. Over half the region's employment is in agricultural activities. It contributes around 20 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in South East Asia and around a third of GDP in more rural South Asia. For the most disadvantaged countries in the region, agriculture constitutes the largest component of GDP and provides employment for more than three quarters of the workforce.3 The link between a country's economic development and telecommunications is well established.4 This relationship is also apparent in the rural economy where agricultural income is closely related to the level of rural telecommunications.5 In Thailand and Western Samoa where rural teledensity is relatively high compared to other countries in the region, agricultural income is above the region's average. It only seems fair that sufficient resources should be allocated to rural telecommunications to raise the standard of living of the majority of the region's inhabitants. Adequate rural telecommunications would also reduce rural out-migration thus alleviating problems associated with growing urbanisation,6 lower discrepancies between
1
According to a World Bank report: "From 1965 to 1990 the twenty three economies of East Asia grew faster than all other regions." The second fastest growing region was South Asia. The East Asian Miracle (World Bank, Washington D.C., 1993). 2
Rural population per cent for 1992: 71% of Sub-Saharan Africa, 27% of Latin America and the Caribbean, 75% for South Asia and 71% for East Asia and the Pacific. World Development Report 1994 (World Bank, Washington D.C., 1994). 3
See "Issues facing the especially disadvantaged economies of the ESCAP region." Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP, New York, 1993). 4
For example, there is a statistically significant relationship between a country's income (represented by GDP per capita) and telecommunication development (represented by teledensity or main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants). 5
A regression of the relation between rural teledensity and rural incomes for thirteen Asia-Pacific countries results in a regression coefficient of .81 where 1 would be a perfect correlation. 6
Urban problems include inadequate infrastructure (e.g, electricity shortages, traffic congestion, insufficient water supply), poverty (e.g., overcrowding, malnutrition, environment related diseases and high crime) and environmental degradation (air pollution, pollution of urban waterways). See "Challenges of urbanisation in the Asia-Pacific region". Annual Report 1992 (Asian Development Bank, Manila, 1993).
1
rural and urban dwellers thus minimising social tensions and contribute to the development of tourism, handicrafts and other off-farm employment.
Figure 1: Still pretty rural Asia-Pacific rural population and agricultural employment Asia-Pacific employment 1990 total: 961 million
Asia-Pacific population 1992 total: 3 billion
55% 67%
Agriculture Rural Urban
Other
33%
45%
Source: ESCAP.
2.
Rural telecommunication status
There are a number of possible measurements for gauging rural telecommunication development. These include the percentage of main lines in rural areas; the percentage of main lines in the largest city compared to the rest of the country; and the number of localities with telephone service. Each of the indicators has advantages and disadvantages. The number of main lines in rural areas would make comparisons with the rural population fairly straightforward. Fairness would dictate that rural telephone lines should match the rural population. However, definitions of rural areas vary tremendously making inter-country comparisons difficult. Also, rural telecommunications areas are not always defined in the same way as a rural population areas. Using an indicator such as the percentage of main lines in the largest city is more comparable since the definition is straight-forward. However its usage for measuring overall urban / rural discrepancies is limited. The number of localities with telephone service may be a more realistic indicator in countries where shared community telephones is a more achievable near-term goal than individual service. This indicator, like rural main lines, has limitations in that localities can be defined differently. Furthermore, it may not be relevant for countries that already provide service to most localities and are moving to the provision of individual telephone service. Using these three indicators together should minimize the inherent limitations of a single indicator and result in a better overview of rural telecommunications development. No matter which indicator is used, there is strong evidence of discrepancies between rural and urban telecommunication development in the Asia-Pacific region. For example, while 71 per cent of the population in developing Asia-Pacific countries is rural, only 17 per cent of the telephone lines are in rural areas. Urban teledensity is around ten times greater than rural teledensity. And even though the largest cities in lower income Asia-Pacific countries collectively account for less than 5 per cent of the population, they have almost 25 per cent of the telephone lines (See Tables 1 and 2). The available data on the number of localities with telephone service show low access. In most of the countries for which this data is available, less than 25 per cent of the localities have telephone service. In India, only 26 per cent of the Gram Panchayats had telephone service in March 1992. In the Philippines, only 20 per cent of municipalities have telephone service (end 1993). In Viet Nam, a little over 2'000 out of 9'000 villages, or around 24 per cent, had telephone service at the end of 1990. The disparity between urban and rural telecommunications is less in the wealthy developed countries of the region. For example, the number of main lines in the largest city in Australia, Japan and New Zealand matches its share of the population. However, even in these countries there are gaps in the availability of communication services. 7
7
"Unfortunately, however, there exists in Japan a rather wide interregional gap in terms of available telecommunications." 1993 Annual Report (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, 1994, Tokyo). In
2
Figure 2: Urban / rural disparities Population and telephone lines in rural and urban areas for developing Asia Pacific, 1992 Rural
Urban 10 Largest city
8
100%
Rest of country
80%
6
60%
Overall
4
40% 2
20%
0
0% Population
Teledensity
Main lines
Source: ITU.
3. Rural telecommunication policy So why are rural telecommunications not better developed in the Asia-Pacific region? One reason is the assumption that rural telecommunications are not profitable. The cost of rural network installation is typically higher than urban areas because of the larger distances involved. And there is a common belief that the rural market cannot afford telecommunication services. Many developing Asia-Pacific countries are already faced with low telephone density and large waiting lists. With an average teledensity of just over one telephone line per 100 people, over 8 million people waiting for a telephone line and an average wait for service of around five and half years, telecommunication operators in the region already have their hands full and rural telecommunications ends up low on the list of priorities. Recent developments are eroding the myth that rural telecommunications are not cost-effective. There are a number of new technical approaches to rural telecommunications that claim to reduce costs.8 Also, there is evidence that suggests rural telecommunications is more affordable than believed.9 Revenue per subscriber in rural areas is often higher than residential urban areas because once a telephone is installed in a rural area, it is heavily used.10 Furthermore, usage is almost entirely long distance since there are few if any other local subscribers to call. And long distance calls generate more revenue than local calls. The telephone is used to
Australia, a new programme to equalize television service is aimed at providing regional areas with the same number of television services as that available in provincial capitals. Annual Report 1992 (AOTC, 1992, Melbourne). In New Zealand, the quality and reliability of service to remote rural customers is being progressively improved. 1994 Annual Report (Telecom New Zealand, Auckland, 1994). 8
"We have developed fixed wireless telephone systems for emerging countries that are seeking to improve their communications infrastructures. These systems can be installed in approximately half the time and at half the cost of traditional wireline systems." 1993 Annual Report (GM Hughes Electronics Corporation, Los Angeles, 1994). "New switching technology is now available allowing incremental investment with rapid economic return, reducing project costs and delays and increasing the chances of success." Incremental Investment Strategy for Rural Networks and Regional Centres Using Small Digital Exchanges (John C. Smirle, 1993, Canada). 9
A World Bank discussion paper on India found "many rural consumers can pay relatively large sums for telecommunications connections, and the need for subsidizing them is not likely warranted. The Government policy of dispersing industry has had the effect of relocating substantial industrial firms in rural areas...Many such firms are willing to finance communications networks..." Telecommunications Reform in India: An International Perspective (World Bank Informal Discussion Paper, 1992, Washington D.C.). 10
For example one study found rural payphones and call offices generate higher revenues than business and residential lines. Rural telephones also generate incoming calls from urban areas thus adding to overall revenue for network operators. See Making Rural Telecommunications Profitable (CIDA, 1993, Canada).
3
contact larger towns and cities for business (e.g., check agricultural prices, availability of supplies) and social (e.g., contact family that have migrated to cities or abroad) reasons. Heavy long distance usage by rural subscribers is borne out by statistics from Thailand. If current trends continue, there will be more long distance calls from rural than urban areas in Thailand by the turn of the century (see Figure 3). The need for rural telecommunications should not only be analysed from a strict business point of view as there are significant but hard to measure benefits to the overall economy. As mentioned earlier, there are numerous advantages from rural telecommunications (reducing urban migration, reducing regional disparities, developing rural areas) that will raise the national welfare. Most countries in the region recognise this and, at least on paper, are committed to rural telecommunication development. This was formulated at a regional level at the Regional Telecommunication Development Conference for Asia-Pacific held in Singapore in May 1993 which adopted a resolution "to extend areas of basic telecommunication services to all those underprivileged living in rural and remote areas."11 How this is defined in each country differs depending on its level of economic development. For many developing countries, providing localities with pay phones is a more affordable near-term target than individual telephone ownership. In Malaysia, the Rural Pay Phone Programme, begun in 1991, is on track to install 11,900 new rural public payphones, or at least one payphone per village, by the end of 1995. For developed countries, the goal is individual telephone ownership in rural areas. Australia's Rural and Remote Areas Programme connected 45,000 new customers in remote areas since 1983. But these achievements are rare and concrete measures for developing rural telecommunications is still lacking in many countries of the region. One danger is that as the pace of telecommunications liberalization accelerates, rural telecommunications will be further neglected. Privatization and competition are growing in the region, often before nascent regulatory authorities have been able to establish operator obligations for rural telecommunications. A number of countries have licensed the lucrative cellular service to private (and often foreign) investors without imposing any obligation on them to contribute to provide full geographical coverage. In countries that have privatized their operators, high income for shareholders may be difficult to reconcile with rural telecommunications development.
Figure 3: Urban/rural telephone usage Local and national long distance calling in Thailand originating in metropolitan and provincial areas
18'000 16'000 14'000 12'000 10'000 8'000 6'000 4'000 2'000 0
Note:
National long distance calls 2'500
Metro Tel. Area Millions
Prov. Tel. Area
2'000
Metro Tel. Area
1'500
Prov. Tel. Area
1'000 500 2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
0 1988
Million pulses
Local telephone usage
1993-2000 are projections based on 1988-92 growth rates.
Source: TOT.
11
Another regional policy statement on rural communications was adopted at the Ministerial Meeting organized by the Asia Pacific Telecommunity, Singapore, 1992. The Asia-Pacific Declaration on Strategies for Accelerating the Growth of Telecommunications urges governments to "seek solutions for network expansion, particularly in rural areas" and "provide at least the basic telephone services within easy reach of the people."
4
Box 1. Wireless communications for rural areas Wireless communications offer new ways of providing rural telecommunication service that can reduce costs and speed service delivery. Technologies include mobile and fixed cellular, radio paging, voice mail, Very Small Aperture Terminals for Satellite Communications (VSAT) and future Personal Communications Mobile Satellite Services (PC-MSS). Mobile cellular usage is exploding world-wide. Asia, where the growth in the number of subscribers was over 40 per cent in 1993, is no exception. In many developing countries, mobile cellular is a rapid way of bypassing long waiting lists and a shortage of fixed link lines since cellular systems can be constructed relatively quickly. New digital cellular service, now being introduced, increases the number of subscribers that can be connected and should make the technology more widely available. The big attraction for rural areas is that cable does not have to be laid for connecting subscribers to the exchange. Fixed cellular is a variation designed for subscribers who do not need to move around with the telephone making it particularly attractive for rural areas. Because there is no need for call hand-off between cells, it can be implemented more cheaply than mobile cellular. One option for connecting the cellular network into the long distance network is to use satellite communications with the mobile exchange transmitting long distance calls via satellite to another mobile exchange or the fixed network. Radio paging and voice mail provide virtual telephone solutions for a lack of telephones. With a paging device, the user is notified that he is trying to be reached and can then go to a public telephone to return the call. Pagers have proved especially popular in China where there were around 5.6 million subscribers by the end of 1993. This is equivalent to around a fifth of the world total and a third of the Chinese main lines. Voice mail works by the subscriber calling a service that alerts him of calls he has received. The traditional approach to getting telephone service into small towns and rural areas, using copper cables, is far too slow. On present trends, even in the year 2000 and beyond there will be hundreds of thousands of villages that do not even have a single line telephone to call for help in medical emergencies or natural disasters. One of the most efficient and effective ways to get the job done is to use flexibility and low-costs offered by advanced VSAT networks connected to fixed satellite services. PC-MSS systems are being planned by a number of world-wide consortiums with service anticipated before the end of the century. The concept is to blanket the world with satellites that can directly communicate with hand-held telephones. Because the bulk of the network is in the sky, there is very little terrestrial infrastructure needed so that this could be the ultimate solution for rural telecommunications. A liberalized telecommunication environment can assist rural telecommunication development by reducing prices, increasing supply, and introducing contractual social obligations. There is ample evidence from countries that have introduced competition that prices are reduced. For example, long distance rates have been reduced by half in Japan since competition. This benefits rural users since they tend to make more long distance calls. Most incumbent operators have thus far been unable to provide adequate service to rural areas so licensing new rural operators might improve the supply of services. Rural operators would be more attuned to the needs and problems for rural communications and thus in a better position to provide cost-effective solutions. Converting telecommunication operations to a licensed activity can impose legal obligations on the operator for assisting rural telecommunications. Some countries have recently began to leverage the new liberalised telecommunication environment for promoting improved rural access. In the Philippines, a new executive order could accelerate telecommunication development in rural areas. It requires new licensees for lucrative international and cellular services to also install telephones in underserved parts of the country. In Thailand, a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) concession was awarded to the Thai Telephone & Telecommunication Co., Ltd. to install one million lines in the provinces. In Bangladesh, a new operator, the Bangladesh Rural Telecommunication Authority has been licensed to provide rural services. The examples above suggest that rural telecommunications can be cost-effective since companies would not get involved if they are going to lose money. Thus the problem with rural telecommunications appears to be more political than financial. Therefore one of the most practical things that governments can do is adopt appropriate policies to encourage rural telecommunication service providers. Three organizational policy choices have emerged that can be adopted to spur rural telecommunications:
•
Altering constraints on incumbent operators. This might include allowing operators to keep more of their earnings for reinvestment in rural areas. Operators should also be encouraged to adopt decentralized
5
structures with local operating units covering rural areas. A local unit is in closer contact with rural users and better positioned to adopt cost effective and practical solutions.
• •
Providing concessions for rural areas. Allowing private companies or local community associations to provide rural service through revenue sharing arrangements with incumbent operators. Allowing new operators. For example, new local operators could be granted licenses in rural areas or operators with licenses in lucrative areas could be obligated to also provide service in rural areas.
These organizational options should be combined with policies to ensure that rural service is affordable. This can include provisions such as in New Zealand that rural users are not charged more for basic service than urban residential users. There are a number of ways of reducing the burden on operators for providing low-cost rural service. The government can assist operators in obtaining low cost loans for rural telecommunications from national banks or multilateral lenders such as the Asian Development Bank.12 Another option is to establish a fund that all operators contribute to in order to offset the higher costs of developing rural telecommunications.13 The importance of telecommunications for rural development is critical and all countries should strive to at least provide all localities with telephone service by the year 2000. This is a minimum target and once reached, new service guidelines must be set to ensure that rural areas are not left behind in access to the emerging international information infrastructure. The convergence of computing, broadcasting and telecommunications will result in a new communications era which goes beyond basic voice telephony into data, text and image services such as high-speed database access, distance learning and videoconferencing. Rural service will need to be redefined to include access to these multimedia information services. One of the most persuasive arguments for the development of advanced information infrastructure and services is their ability to provide multimedia information services to isolated areas which could dramatically narrow the information gap between urban and rural.
12
In the United States, the Rural Electrification Program has provided over US$ 10 billion of low-interest loans since 1949 in its Rural Telephone Program. See 1992 Statistical Report Rural Telephone Borrowers (US Department of Agriculture, 1993, Washington D.C.). 13
This is one approach taken in the US where major long distance carriers contribute to a Universal Service High Cost Funds (USF). The funds are used to keep rates low and help pay for system upgrades and extensions to previously unserved areas. See Telecommunications and its Impact on Rural America (National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation, 1994, Washington D.C.).
6
Box 2. ITU/BDT Integrated rural development programme 14 For many developing countries, there are large gaps in living conditions, education, health care and basic telephone between urban and rural areas. The ITU's Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT), the sector of the ITU responsible for fostering telecommunication development world-wide, has a rural telecommunication programme with two central concepts. The first is that rural telecommunication policies should be integrated with other important rural needs such as agriculture, education, transportation and health care in government development plans and policies. An efficient telecommunications infrastructure can help support other sectors of the rural economy and should not be considered in isolation. The second concept is that group telecommunication access is a more affordable near-term goal. The BDT programme calls for the provision of community telecentres in strategic locations that are equipped to offer not only basic voice telephony but also telematic services and support. The telecentres would be the entrance ramps to the global information superhighway. Services would include facsimile, data communications, and interactive video as well as connection to the world-wide Internet network. Rural communications are also be reviewed by an ITU/BDT Study Group. Question 4/2: Communications for rural and remote areas deals with issues such as appropriate technology, planning, regulatory options and financing (see Annex 2).
14
Adopted as part of the Buenos Aires Action Plan at the World Telecommunication Development Conference (Argentina, 1994). For additional information about this programme contact J. Ernberg, Programme Coordinator, ITU/BDT, Geneva, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 730 5090, Fax: +41 22 730 5484, Internet: ernberg@itu.ch.
7
Table 1: Rural telecommunication development 1 Distribution of main telephone lines, 1992
Economy Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China D.P.R. Korea Fiji French Polynesia Guam Hong Kong India Indonesia Iran (I.R.) Japan Kiribati Korea (Rep. of) Lao P.D.R. Macao Malaysia Maldives Micronesia Mongolia Myanmar Nepal New Caledonia New Zealand Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Taiwan, China Thailand Tonga Vanuatu Viet Nam Western Samoa Total -OECD -Dragons -Developing Note:
Population Total Rural (000) (%) 22'190.4 82% 17'862.1 15% 113'080.0 82% 1'539.0 94% 279.9 42% 9'054.4 88% 1'183'620.0 71% 22'708.3 40% 766.6 56% 213.4 ... 144.1 46% 5'963.3 6% 896'883.0 72% 187'648.0 68% 61'948.4 41% 124'836.0 23% 74.1 64% 43'954.3 26% 4'571.0 80% 484.9 1% 19'192.0 55% 236.6 69% 108.0 74% 2'301.5 47% 44'428.2 75% 20'423.7 90% 172.7 20% 3'478.3 17% 122'345.0 67% 4'215.8 84% 65'172.8 56% 3'130.8 0% 348.5 89% 17'585.2 78% 20'851.2 58'476.5 76% 102.6 79% 166.1 80% 71'012.0 77% 172.7 77% 3'151'741 146'176 73'900 2'931'665
67% 22% 22% 71%
Total (000) 29.0 8'257.0 268.4 3.8 55.2 5.0 17'330.0 1'089.3 54.0 44.9 65.8 2'992.1 8'037.4 1'805.9 3'597.9 57'652.3 1.8 16'686.1 8.6 134.5 2'410.7 10.0 6.1 69.2 80.0 80.7 38.7 1'562.0 1'604.8 39.8 847.5 1'245.6 4.9 157.8 7'950.5 2'184.9 5.5 3.2 260.0 6.5 136'687 67'471 28'874 40'342
Main lines Rural Per 100 inhabitants (%) Total Rural Urban ... 0.13 ... ... 1.0% 46.23 3.09 53.83 20.0% 0.24 0.06 1.08 16.0% 0.25 0.04 3.62 ... 19.73 ... ... 31.9% 0.06 0.02 0.31 20.0% 1.46 0.41 3.98 ... 4.80 ... ... 3.5% 7.04 0.44 15.29 32.0% 21.07 ... ... ... 45.70 ... ... .-. 50.17 .-. 50.17 10.4% 0.90 0.13 2.87 ... 0.96 ... ... 4.5% 5.81 0.64 9.40 ... 46.18 ... ... ... 2.37 ... ... 12.8% 37.96 18.80 44.64 17.0% 0.19 0.04 0.79 4.0% 27.73 88.05 26.96 15.0% 12.56 3.41 23.90 ... 4.21 ... ... 5.0% 5.69 0.38 20.78 25.0% 3.01 1.59 4.27 33.8% 0.18 0.08 0.47 0.8% 0.40 0.003 3.74 22.0% 22.44 24.84 21.84 ... 44.91 ... ... 7.0% 1.31 0.14 3.69 22.0% 0.94 0.25 4.71 ... 1.30 ... ... 0.0% 39.78 .-. 39.78 ... 1.41 ... ... 66.0% 0.90 0.76 1.40 55.0% 38.13 ... ... 35.0% 3.74 1.72 10.15 39.0% 5.35 2.63 15.71 1.93 ... ... ... 0.37 ... ... 40.0% 3.76 1.95 9.88 18% ... 25% 17%
4.34 46.16 39.07 1.38
0.62 ... 55.69 0.31
11.89 ... 35.95 3.93
OECD=Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Dragons=Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, China. Developing = all others.
Source: ITU, ESCAP, ADB, World Bank.
8
Table 2: Rural telecommunication development 2 Main lines in largest city and rest of country
Economy Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China D.P.R. Korea Fiji French Polynesia Guam Hongkong India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Rep.) Japan Kiribati Korea (Rep.) Lao P.D.R. Macau Malaysia Maldives Micronesia Mongolia Myanmar Nepal New Caledonia New Zealand Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Singapore Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Taiwan, China Thailand Tonga Vanuatu Viet Nam Western Samoa Asia-Pacific - OECD - 4 dragons - Developing
Largest city Population Main lines as % of total as % of total 7.7% 19.9% 6.5% 1.3% 27.2% 11.3% 1.2% 10.2% 27.4% 11.7% ... 95.5% 1.5% 5.4% 12.1% 14.7% 27.8% 26.4% 9.9% ... 9.6% 27.9% 5.8% 25.5% 7.9% 1.9% 38.2% 26.2% 6.8% 5.2% 15.0% 100.0% 9.0% 4.4% 13.0% 13.2% 29.7% 9.3% 4.9% 21.6% 4.5% 15.6% 30.8% 3.2%
75.9% 19.3% 91.3% 63.2% 33.2% 75.1% 6.7% 10.9% 18.7% 62.9% ... ... 13.2% 56.3% 40.9% 13.8% 50.0% 36.1% 82.6% ... 11.1% 95.7% 51.5% 48.5% 51.6% 46.7% 63.9% 26.7% 30.1% 89.7% 79.5% 100.0% 66.4% 68.8% 20.5% 60.0% 61.0% 75.0% 24.3% 95.1% 20.8% 14.7% 34.4% 23.3%
Teledensity 1.33 44.12 3.16 9.35 21.60 0.46 4.18 3.81 4.57 113.93 ... ... 6.75 8.36 16.93 41.61 3.00 48.98 1.42 ... 10.38 12.75 19.55 5.70 1.12 8.48 34.53 44.94 4.58 15.58 5.47 41.60 10.91 12.14 56.50 12.64 11.16 16.00 1.09 11.14 21.45 43.06 48.95 8.57
Note:
Rest of country teledensity 0.04 44.77 0.02 0.07 16.25 0.02 0.68 3.38 7.51 8.88 ... ... 0.68 0.37 3.37 46.00 1.15 31.07 0.03 ... 11.58 0.22 1.31 2.07 0.09 0.19 12.06 43.90 0.78 0.10 0.25 41.60 0.54 0.25 32.65 1.24 3.01 0.55 0.18 0.16 3.12 45.82 31.48 0.74
Overall country teledensity 0.13 47.10 0.22 0.20 17.71 0.07 0.98 4.75 6.70 21.16 31.06 47.72 0.77 0.81 5.02 46.51 1.89 35.79 0.19 31.71 11.24 3.72 2.86 3.00 0.18 0.35 20.65 44.99 1.04 0.90 1.03 41.60 1.47 0.78 35.75 3.11 5.43 1.99 0.22 4.01 4.03 46.55 36.97 1.07
OECD=Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Dragons=Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, China. Developing = all others. Source: ITU.
9