ALSO AVAILABLE FROM ITU ... ... PUBLICATIONS

ITU Internet Reports 2003: Birth of Broadband (5th Edition) .............................................................................. 100.– CHF Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2003: Promoting Universal Access to ICTs – Practical tools for regulators (5th Edition) .............................................................................................90.– CHF Yearbook of Statistics, Telecommunication Services 1992-2001 (29th Edition) .................................................... 65.– CHF Asia-Pacific Telecommunication Indicators 2002 ..................................................................................................60.– CHF World Telecommunication Development Report 2002: Reinventing Telecoms (6th Edition) ............................... 100.– CHF

... DATABASES

World Telecommunication Indicators Database 2003 (7th Edition) One download ................................................................................................................................................ 200.– CHF Yearly subscription (updates via Internet) ...................................................................................................... 750.– CHF Trends in Telecommunication Reform: Country Profiles, 2000 (CD-ROM)............................................................ 225.– CHF

... WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION INDICATORS ONLINE

This report, together with several of the other Telecommunication Indicator reports and databases listed above, is available in electronic form from the ITU Electronic Bookshop. The reports can be ordered, purchased by credit card, and downloaded via the Internet at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/

Please contact the ITU Sales and Marketing Division for any further information concerning prices, availability, or purchase: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Website: +41 22 730 61 41 +41 22 730 51 94 sales@itu.int http://www.itu.int/publications/

Note: Discounts are available for ITU Member States and Sector Members, and for purchasers from the Least Developed Countries.

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003
Access Indicators for the Information Society

2003 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

© 2003 ITU International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva Switzerland First printing December 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the International Telecommunication Union. Denominations and classifications employed in this publication do not imply any opinion on the part of the International Telecommunication Union concerning the legal or other status of any territory or any endorsement or acceptance of any boundary. Where the designation “country” appears in this publication, it covers countries and territories.

ISBN 92-61-10541-6

FOREWORD
The 2003 ITU World Telecommunication Development Report: Access Indicators for the Information Society has been specially prepared for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) (Geneva, 10-12 December 2003). This year’s report examines the specific issue of measuring access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). ITU has long been involved in analysing access to ICTs. As early as 1984, the Maitland Commission Report, known as “The Missing Link”, first drew international attention to the large inequities in telephone access across the world. ITU’s 1998 World Telecommunication Development Report—on “universal access”— updated the Missing Link findings in light of technological and regulatory changes affecting the telecommunication industry. Until recently, infrastructure had been considered as the main obstacle to improving access to ICTs. Existing indicators are therefore often infrastructurebased, measuring such variables as the number of main telephone lines, and typically use telecommunication operators’ data. But there is growing evidence that other factors, such as affordability and knowledge, are an important part of the access picture. It is widely recognized that new indicators are needed. The new environment, with a growing emphasis on reducing the digital divide, requires access and usage indicators disaggregated by socio-economic categories such as age, gender, income and location. To measure the ICT picture in full, new multi-stakeholder partnerships will be required involving not only the statistical agencies that are traditionally responsible for conducting surveys, but also policy-makers, the private sector, civil society, multilateral organisations and others involved the ICT arena. In 2003, nearly two decades after the Missing Link findings, this new edition of the World Telecommunication Development Report seeks to help meet this need by identifying relevant indicators for measuring access of the world’s populations to ICTs— helping to measure the extent to which countries and communities worldwide have genuine access to the information society. The report has six chapters. The first puts the information society in context, describing why new indicators are needed to follow trends and make comparisons. The second chapter discusses indicators for measuring individual, household and community access to ICTs showing their relevance for different policy objectives such as universal service or access. Chapter three looks at measuring ICT access in the key sectors of businesses, government and schools, where ICT use is crucial for electronic commerce, efficient public administration, and to encourage youth to participate in the information society. Chapter four examines the interrelationship between ICT indicators and the Millennium Development Goals, which have attracted considerable attention as a standard for identifying and measuring global development objectives. Chapter five examines the need for a relevant and inclusive ICT index to measure country progress. In conclusion, chapter six offers recommendations for improving the availability of information society access indicators. The views expressed are those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of ITU or its Members.

Yoshio UTSUMI Secretary-General International Telecommunication Union

iii

.

it provides a valuable contribution to international benchmarking and will be a vital reference to assess national conditions in information and communications technology. and international. public access and broadband. Should— as expected—one of the outcomes of the Summit be a deepened focus on indicators for monitoring the information society. dissemination and exchange of information on telecommunications and ICT. In January it organized the World Telecommunication Indicators/ICT meeting. The compilation of statistics and analysis of trends have accelerated recently with increased focus around the world on ICTs. In December. the ITU-D and the Mexican Undersecretary of Communications jointly organized a workshop on measuring community access to ICTs. The Report also features the Digital Access Index (DAI). In that respect ITU has been closely involved with the MDG Expert Group on indicators for monitoring the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. While many of our Members were excluded from previous ICT rankings. Telecommunication Development Bureau International Telecommunication Union v . researchers. If governments adopt the guidelines identified in the report. TOURÉ Director. In October. including mobile Internet. ITU stands ready to collaborate with other partners to reinforce efforts in this direction. ICT knowledge. ICTs have been identified as both an MDG target as well an indispensable tool for achieving the other MDG targets. operators. statisticians. it would aid immensely towards understanding the development of the information society around the world. The report reflects the importance that the ITU’s Development Sector (ITU-D) attaches to the collection. regional and non-governmental organizations will find this report a vital toolkit for their work and activities. the WSIS statistical side event on monitoring the information society was organized by ITU along with five other international agencies. These goals and targets were adopted by the international community and are global standards by which many facets of human development will be measured over the years to come. The report wraps up a busy year for ITU-D statistical activities. Related to that is the need for harmonized indicators to measure the impact of ICTs on the MDGs. This brought together telecommunication regulators and national statistical agencies to identify and define key indicators for tracking telecommunication/ICT markets. Our staff also participated in statistical events throughout the year to share on-going research on defining indicators in various areas. Hamadoun I.PREFACE It is a pleasure to present this seventh edition of the World Telecommunication Development Report. By covering a total of 178 economies. 2002). the first truly global ICT ranking. I am convinced that ICT policy-makers. There is also growing focus on indicators coming from the adoption of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). one of the benefits of the DAI is its inclusiveness. particularly in developing countries. investors. I am pleased to note that this report uncovers new ground in that area by providing examples of possible indicators. These activities arise out of the ITU’s role to collect statistics covering its sector as the United Nation’s specialized agency for telecommunications and Resolution 8: Collection and dissemination of information of the last World Telecommunication Development Conference (Istanbul. Identifying and understanding the challenges and the emergence of the global information society is particularly important for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) for which this report was specially prepared.

Stéphane Rollet did the cover design. Taylor Reynolds. Expert Meeting on Measuring Electronic Commerce as an Instrument for the Development of the Digital Economy. Tim Kelly. Joanna Goodrick was the principal editor. Several meetings provided valuable input to the report. Indicators Workshop on Community Access to ICTs. of Portugal made the drawing on the cover. The authors would like to thank ITU Member States and Sector Members. public telecommunication operators. Megha Mukim. Special thanks to Martin Hilbert of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and Rahul Tongia of Carnegie Mellon University for their comments on the Digital Access Index and the Statistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT) for granting permission to reproduce their surveys. vi . Patricia Sofia Sousa Pinto. the Eurostat Working Group Meeting on Communication Statistics and the New Initiatives workshops. age ten.A team led by Michael Minges and comprising Vanessa Gray and Esperanza Magpantay prepared the report. Nathalie Delmas-Rollet coordinated the layout and production of the report. regulators and others that have provided data and other inputs to the report. Susan Schorr and Sushant Suri also contributed. These included the World Telecommunication / ICT Indicators Meeting. Inter-agency and Expert Group on Millennium Development Goals Indicators.

... 127 GLOSSARY.... iii PREFACE ..............................................................................2 5.......................................... 88 Conclusions ......................................................................................... 3 2..........................1 2......... 5............................................................................... 137 ANNEX 2: EUROSTAT PILOT SURVEY ON BUSINESS ICT ................. 100 The Digital Access Index ....... 99 Why indices are important ............................ 9 Indicators .................................................................................................................................................................... 1....................................... EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT ........2 ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY ............................................................... ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...........2 4....................................................... 133 ANNEX 1: GENERAL OUTLINE FOR EUROSTAT’S PLANNED HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS ON ICT USAGE ...................................................................................1 1......... 41 Measuring ICT access in the educational sector ............................................................................. 3........................................................................................................... 99 Existing ICT indices ..................................2 2................................................................................ 9 Measurement in practice ........... 9 Introduction .....................................2 3.......................................................... 47 Measuring government access to ICTs ................................ goals and targets ...................1 3............................................................................................................................................................................................. xi 1..................................................................................... 2................................................................ 71 The Millennium Declaration ...........................................4 4.............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Conclusions ..................................3 ICTS IN BUSINESS............................................ 147 WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION INDICATORS ........................................................... 103 Results ........................... 1 Measuring access to ICTs — a first step towards the information society ........................CONTENTS FOREWORD ............................................................1 4.................................................................................................................. 1 ICTs and the information society ................................................................................................................................. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX .. 92 5.......................................................................................... 54 4..................................5 A NEW........................................................................................ 71 Measuring the impact of ICTs on the Millennium Development Goals ...........................................................................................................................................................4 5.......................................................................................................................................... 78 WSIS objectives..................... 4...............................................4 2.................................................5 MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS ..................... 41 Measuring business access to ICTs .......... 111 Future work ................................................3 5....................................................................... CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................3 2......................................................................... 113 6..........................1 5.......................................................................... 13 Community access indicators ................................................................................... 71 Target 18: Information and communications ..............3 4...............................................................5 ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................................................. 31 3.......................................... A-i vii ................................... iv DATA NOTES ............................................................................................................................................

7 2......... 82 Is there a link? .............................................................10 2............................................................................................................................................. 13 The most popular ICTs ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 1............................... 10 Two ways of measuring universal access ................................................................15 3. 48 Students............................................... 14 Electricity and ICTs ............................................................................................................. 44 Business ICTs in emerging economies ..4 2......................................................5 2...12 3..... 17 Telephones in homes .................................................... 3 The Statistical Divide .....................................................16 3......................... computers and workstations ...........................................6 3................................................................................. 50 Connectivity varies .. 43 ICT penetration in Nordic companies ...FIGURES 1.................................................................................7 3......14 2............................................................ 86 The impact of ICTs on the MDGs ............................. 31 Importance of ICTs in business ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 Better online than in line ..................................5 3..................................2 3............................................ 88 Connecting schools.................................................................................................................1 1..................................................19 2........................................... 22 Who is number one? ...................................................................................................................17 4....................................................................................................................................................8 4... 16 Still the most popular for homes and Internet ....................................13 3...........................14 3..............................................9 3................................5 4................ libraries and post offices in Jamaica ....................................................................................3 2................................................... 29 Public Internet facilities in Tunisia and Venezuela ............................................................................................8 2...................................................................................... 15 Breaking down main lines ........................ 6 Per capita distortions .................................................................26 3.................................................................18 2..................................6 4.................................................................................................................................1 3......................................................................... 44 Business ICTs in developing nations ........... 21 Computer use ........................................ 19 Mobile Internet ......................................................................................... 48 Internet user profiles ...................................................................................................................................................................................... computers and Internet access in the OECD ................................................10 3........................................................................................................................................................4 3.................................................... 89 Broadcasting coverage ..................................................................2 1.......................... 30 Location of access ........................................................................13 2........................................................................................... 75 How wide the divide? .................................................................................................................. 22 PC homes ..................................................9 2........... 49 Students with computers and Internet in Western Europe .......................... 18 Households with more mobile phones than fixed .........................8 3.................................1 2....................................... 56 Digital government divide in Peru .......................................................................................................................9 The ICT sector in the world economy ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Businesses with Internet access ..................................................................................................................... 28 Not enough ICTs at home ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. poverty and hunger in Bangladesh ............ 27 Broadband indicators .......................................................................................................................21 2...12 2..............................................................................................20 2.............................................................. 23 The shrinking the digital divide? .............................................................. 18 Mobile indicators .............2 4..........................................................................................................................................................................4 2.....3 4.............................................17 2........... 16 The death of ISDN? ......................................................... 2 Digital divides ...........6 2.......................... 42 ICTs and company size ......................................... 74 Telephone subscribers.................25 2............................................................................................................... 58 A decade of ICT progress ..................................24 2...7 4...... 11 Spatial dimensions of ICT access ..........................22 2.................................................................................... 12 Gaps in possession collecting and in possessions collected ................................................................ 86 Connecting villages ................................................15 2.......... 14 Cable television indicators .......................................... 90 viii ...............................1 4............................................. 28 Public Internet Access Points in the EU ............................ 26 Internet in the home ................................... 46 Youth and ICTs .................3 3.................................................. 77 Phones.....................2 2......................... 1 Spreading like wildfire ................................. 55 Governments online ............. 20 PCs ............................................................... 55 Employees...................................................11 3............................................................................................. 30 Localities with access ..................................................................................................11 2..........................................................................................................................................................................23 2..................... 45 ICTs in SMEs .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 4...........................................16 2............................ 57 ICT usage among civil servants .........................................................

....................................................................................................................... 5 Africa................................1 2..................................................................... 117 Compiling the Digital Access Index ...............................................................................10 5...6 5............3 5........................................................................... 101 Re-comparing Korea and Switzerland ....................................... 7 So how many are online? .............................. 80 No Smoking .........................................1 3................ 92 Factors affecting ICT access ................... 104 Testing the robustness of the DAI . 104 Thai Women Online ............................................ 78 ICTs and the Japanese economy ...................... 85 Measuring the information society ............................................................................................................................. 119 Sources and analysis of ICT data ..................................... 93 ITU indices .....................................................................FIGURES (cont’d) 4..............2 4.............................2 2...................................................................................................................... 4 Dispelling the myths ................................................................................2 5...1 1..............................2 5..............................................................................1b 1...................1 5...................................... 103 Economies shaping the DAI goalposts ............................................................2 3................................................ 32 ICTs in Estonian schools ..........................4 5...........................................................................................1 World telephone coverage .................................................................................. 131 BOX FIGURES 1......................... 51 Trends in school connectivity and student-to-computer ratios ...4 4......................................................................................................................................................................................2 5.................................... Tokyo and Japan ............................................................................................................................................................... 53 ICT in the health sector ...................................................... 101 “Lies...........................................................1 2..........................................................................................................................................................................................2 2.....................1 5.............................................................................................4 4...............................5 5.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Towards the new...... 115 Reversal of fortune . Japan-Inspired IT Society ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................2 4..................................... 25 DCCs in Mexico .................................................................................... 102 Factors impacting ICT access .....3 4......... 25 Community access indicators ................................................................................................................................................ for poorer ......................................................................................................... 130 BOXES 1................................................................................................................................5 5.......................................................................................................................1a 1............... 117 ix ............................ 80 ITU indices .............................................................................3 4....................................1 4..................................................................................................4 5......................................................................... 118 National information society indicators portal ........... Damned Lies and Statistics” ...... 79 The downside of ICTs .................................................2 3................................................ 51 Internet use by gender .......................................................................................4 5...................................................................1 5......................................................... 113 National DAI ............................................................................................ 110 Thai Women Online .........................5 4......................2 4....... 101 Factors impacting ICT access ........................................................................................... 76 ICT gender statistics ......... 7 Over surveyed .................3 3................................................................................. 4 The good and the bad of the information society ........... 59 For richer............................................................................... 47 Northern Tiger Shining Bright ....... 115 A gender modified DAI ............................................................................................................2 3...................................3 5.......................................... 109 The digital divide through the DAI ...............6 6....... 79 ICTs working against the MDGs ....................................1 Tales of the information society in two countries .......................................3 5............................................................................................................6 6...................................5 The information society takes root in Uganda ........................................................................................ 32 A digital divide in enterprises? .....................................................................

........................................................................................................................................ 72 How ICTs can help achieve the Millennium Declaration Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 128 ANNEX TABLES 2......... 87 DAI Indicators ........................................................................................................................................... 106 DAI goalposts ................................................................................. 48 Indicators ...................................................................................1 2................... 24 Eight Goals......................2 5.....................................................................................................................................................TABLES 2..................................................................................1 5.............................................................................................................................................. 63 ICTs in Government ..................................3 3...... 120 e-ITU indicators ........................................ 61 UNESCO: Proposed Set of Indicators for ICTs in Education ......................................................................... 60 ICTs in Business ...1 3.................................. 62 ICTs in schools .......... 18 Targets.. 36 eEurope indicators ...................................................................1 4................ 34 ICTs in households ......................................4 6.........................................2 4...................... 66 x ...............1 Internet user surveys around the world .......1 4..............2 3................................................................... 81 How ICTs can impact the MDGs .....................................................................................................................4 3........ 108 Substitutes of DAI indicators for gender analysis ............................3 5.....................5 The most important indicators for measuring access to ICT ......................................................................................2 3......................3 5......................................................................... 118 DAI results .........................................................

Slovak Republic and Turkey. Denmark. Poland. Developed economies are classified as: Australia. Togo. Emerging is also sometimes used in the report. The LDCs are Afghanistan. Belgium. Finland. New Zealand. National currency values have been converted using average annual exchange rates. xi . • Growth rates are based on current prices unless otherwise noted. Ethiopia. Norway. Comoros. Lao People’s Democratic Republic. • High income — Economies with a GNI per capita of US$ 9’076 or more. • Southern Europe – Cyprus. • Commonwealth of Independent States — 12 republics emerging from the former Soviet Union excluding the Baltic nations. Nepal. Netherlands. Members include all the developed countries plus Czech Republic.DATA NOTES Country groupings A number of economic and regional groupings are used in the report. Hungary. Central African Republic. Greece. Romania. Haiti. Mali. Bangladesh. Sudan. Luxembourg. • Dollars are current United States dollars (US$) unless otherwise noted. Samoa. The classification developed and developing is also used in the report. Burkina Faso. and Zambia. See List of economies in the World Telecommunication Indicators section for the primary regional classification of specific economies. this is noted). France. Benin. Gambia. Mauritania. Iceland. Uganda. Bulgaria. Mexico. Europe and Oceania. Austria. Estonia. Canada. • Upper-middle income — Economies with a GNI per capita of between US$ 2’936 and US$ 9’075. • North America — Generally. Czech Republic. China as well as Cyprus and Israel. Sao Tome and Principe. Democratic Republic of the Congo. • Central and Eastern Europe — Albania. Cambodia. Serbia and Montenegro. • Latin America and the Caribbean — Central (including Mexico) and South America and the Caribbean. Lithuania. The main regional groupings are Africa. • Western Europe — refers to the member states of the European Union. Maldives. Germany. Norway and Switzerland. Ireland. Tuvalu. Guinea. The following subregional groupings are also used in the report: • Arab region— Arabic-speaking economies. All other economies are considered developing for the purposes of this report. Slovenia and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Madagascar. • Lower-middle income — Economies with a GNI per capita of between US$ 736 and US$ 2’935. Latvia. Solomon Islands. Advanced economies include Developed plus Hong Kong. Data notes • Billion is one thousand million. Mexico is also included (if so. Republic of Korea. Mozambique. Chad. Asia. Malawi. as well as Pacific Ocean economies. United Kingdom and the United States. Switzerland. and including Iran. Iceland. Guinea Bissau. Sweden. Spain. Angola. The classification least developed countries (LDCs) is also employed. Economies are classified according to their 2002 GNI per capita in the following groups: • Low income — Economies with a GNI per capita of US$ 735 or less. Bhutan. • Asia-Pacific — refers to all economies in Asia east of. Republic of Korea. Burundi. Hungary. United Republic of Tanzania. Vanuatu. Yemen. China. Senegal. Liberia. The grouping Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is also used. Americas. Kiribati. See the World Telecommunication Indicators section for the income classification of specific economies. Slovak Republic. Somalia. Rwanda. Lesotho. Croatia. Economic groupings are based on gross national income (GNI) per capita classifications used by The World Bank. Sierra Leone. Japan. Singapore and Taiwan. Eritrea. Bosnia. Note that Pacific is also used in the report to refer to the Oceania region. Malta and Turkey. Djibouti. Cape Verde. Myanmar. These are countries that are neither developed nor LDCs. A number of regional groupings are used in the report. Portugal. Canada and the United States although in some charts. Equatorial Guinea. Italy. Niger.

Finally it should be noted that the data generally refer to fiscal years as reported by countries. This can happen because of revisions to data that occurred after sections of the report were written as well as different estimation techniques and/or exchange rates. These variations tend to be insignificant in their impact on the analysis and conclusions drawn in the report.• Thousands are separated by an apostrophe (1’000). Additional definitions are provided in the technical notes of the World Telecommunication Indicators. • Totals may not always add up due to rounding. xii . Note that data in some charts and tables referring to the same item may not be consistent and may also differ from the tables shown in the World Telecommunication Indicators section.

5 1. 2 The draft WSIS Declaration states that the information society is where “…everyone can I Figure 1. n December 2003. by market segment.0 1. 1 . world.5 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Software & services 31% Hardware 30% Telecom services 39% Worldwide ICT market. enabling individuals. ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 1.6% of GDP Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database and ITU estimates derived from European Information Technology Observatory. utilize and share information and knowledge.5 3. 1975-2000 (left) and Information and Communication Technology sector (ICT) revenue. commerce. 2002 (right) Telecom service revenue as percentage of GDP. New information and communication technologies (ICTs) enable instantaneous exchange of information and hold promise for delivering innovative applications in government.1. world.5 2.1: The ICT sector in the world economy Telecom service revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 1. communities and people[s] to achieve their full potential and improve their quality of life in a sustainable manner. emphasizing its importance for transforming lives. 1 The UN’s decision to organize a World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) after holding major conferences on the environment. world 3.0 2. access. 2002: US$ 2'066 billion= 6. human rights and women illustrates the importance the topic has taken on in the world. education and health.”3 The concept of using and processing information is central to this vision.1 ICTs and the information society create. the United Nations held the first high-level meeting focused on the information society.0 0.

left). its greatest impact is through the use of ICT services and products by other sectors to enhance productivity and generate new revenue streams.1. do only one third of South Africans have a mobile phone when almost 100 per cent of the population is within coverage of cellular service? Why are only three per cent of Egyptians online when the country has the second lowest Internet prices in the world? Answering these questions requires detailed analysis. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. Take the Internet. The wider information and communication technology sector accounted for 6. for example. Although ICTs have spread rapidly over the last decade. the Internet’s first backbone.1. 1900-2002. Why. One popular cliché of the 1980s was that the city of Tokyo alone had more telephones than the whole of Africa (Box 1. countries Figure 1.2. the major factor underlying the digital divide would have been a shortage of infrastructure.6 to 2. 2 . world.4 Although the ICT sector is important in its own right.2: Spreading like wildfire Number of countries with a direct connection to the Internet 1988-2003 (left) and number of fixed and mobile telephone subscribers.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 The industries that support the transmission and processing of electronic information are transforming the global economy. the Pacific island of Tokelau became the latest to connect to the global Internet. In September 2003. began accepting connections from overseas in 1998. right). Today’s breaches are more complex and can no longer be simply attributed to a lack of infrastructure. and analysis requires statistics. for mobile communications this was accomplished in under two decades (Figure 1. The Internet allows instant access to information from anywhere. Uncovering the factors that underlie today’s access gap is therefore one of the biggest hurdles facing us. creating a digital divide between those with high and low access (Figure 1.9. a network that began accepting global connections only some 15 years ago. While it took over a century for the world to reach a figure of one billion fixed telephone lines. world. from eight countries online in 1988 to virtually all today (Figure 1. The tremendous growth in communication network construction during the 1990s has since erased this gap. with most of the growth coming in the last decade (Figure 1. millions (right) Number of countries connected to the Internet 202 208 208 208 209 Telephone subscribers. anytime and it is this possibility more than anything. In the quarter century between 1975 and 2000. The impact of communication technologies is reflected in their growing share of world output. penetration levels vary among and within countries. Another success story has been mobile communications.6 per cent of global GDP in 2002 (Figure 1. left). millions 1'400 1'200 1'000 800 600 400 200 0 1900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Fixed 183 158 115 75 31 39 55 191 8 17 20 Mobile 80 90 2000 1988 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 Note: The US National Science Foundation Network (NSFNet). right). A little over a decade ago. It has spread like wildfire. which has excited many about the information society.1). In order to move towards an inclusive information society.3). Between 2000 and 2002.2. no new economies connected to the Internet. telecommunication service revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) practically doubled from 1.2). The speed with which ICTs have permeated every country in the world has been astounding (Box 1.

not just those already collecting data. by income level. usage. crucial for participating in the information society and . Ensuring access is therefore the basis for aspiration towards an information society. While there is a growing body of data about the economic impact of ICTs. many developing nations are struggling to produce even basic ICT indicators.7 1.8 9. need meaningful data to identify disparities in access. 2002 (left) and mobile telephone subscribers and Internet users per 100 inhabitants. Only then can policy-makers uncover reasons for lack of access and most effectively target underserved segments of society. A globally relevant approach needs to concentrate on trends that can be measured to a comparable extent in all countries. little is known about people’s access to and use of ICTs.7 Mobile subscribers 18. reaping its benefits. More specifically it is about measuring access to information and communication technologies. by income level. international comparisons are often hampered by differences in definition and methodologies.1. If it is time to measure the information society.2 Measuring access to ICTs — a first step towards the information society This report is about measuring information societies. The convergence of ICT industries.8 66. has led to the need for a set of policy-oriented information society statistics. particularly in developing nations. Determining the level of access is a prerequisite for measuring use and more sophisticated applications of ICTs. which in some ways stand to benefit the most from the information society. Existing data are also typically derived from administrative records rather than from purpose-built surveys. world. This statistical divide is as great as—or even greater than—the digital divide (Figure 1.1 43. tracking a multitude of factors such as ICT infrastructure. 2002 Low Income Lower Middle World Upper Middle High Income 30. The first step is to take an inventory of who has access and who does not in order to target policies to where they will have the most effect. volume and value. and the new emphasis on addressing the digital divide. 2002 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Population Mobile subscribers Internet users Low Lower middle Upper middle High Per 100 inhabitants. Few countries collect pragmatic indicators for measuring access.3: Digital divides Distribution of population.6 1.7 15. access. it is also time to re-think traditional indicators. and where and how people use or do not use ICTs. This report argues 3 1. 2002 (right) Distribution by income level.4). It is crucial to understand who has access. Even less is known about the social impact of ICTs.7 Internet users Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. track progress and make international comparisons.3 4. and even where they exist. there is a dearth of information for the world’s poorest economies. ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Figure 1. Widespread ICT access can boost economic development and improve citizens’ lives. In particular. While some developed nations are racing ahead in measurement. world. mobile telephone subscribers and Internet users by income level. Although a number of ICT indicators already exist.8 10. they are not always appropriate for policy analysis.

Its manifestation ranges from brightly coloured billboards advertising mobile cellular services in Uganda to multi-player.1: Tales of the information society in two countries The information society is affecting lives everywhere around the world.” Hundreds Box Figure 1. brightening billboards and kiosks.6 170 86 72 2001 44 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1998 1999 2000 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. Bits and pieces of the information society—mobile phones. The growth of mobile in Uganda goes beyond just simple access.5 Five years ago.6 2. Over forty per cent of the rural population is currently covered by mobile telephone service compared to practically zero just five years ago. today there is one for every 44 inhabitants. creating a cyber culture of their own. Internet cafés— have taken root in the country. Operators have been active in the community sponsoring sports teams and building houses and schools. it slowly but surely is spreading ”up-country”.” These fruit terms are carried through to the incumbent’s mobile service dubbed “Mango. from Africa to Asia. Much of the gain has come in the area of mobile communications where there are three operators.9 Uganda. It has revolutionized the way people perceive. there was only one telephone subscriber for every 314 Ugandans. Doctors are using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) to conduct surveys on malaria. the term Ugandans employ for the rural areas. Uganda was one of the first nations in Africa to liberalize its telecommunication market and the results are showing.1a: The information society takes root in Uganda Telecom revenue as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (left) and number of people per telephone subscriber (right). Number of people per telephone subscriber Percentage of population covered by mobile cellular signal 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - 314 1. Uganda Uganda. Although it has been predominantly in cities and towns. they have offered a provocative training ground for testing assumptions about the sustainability of ICT access in rural zones.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Box 1. Though the MCTs have been subject to criticism. Perhaps the surest sign that the information society has arrived is talk of a new Ugandan “Cyber Elite”. The orange logo of MTN—a new market entrant—is omnipresent. Internet cafés have spread throughout the capital Kampala and other towns.1 1. The amazing thing is that all this has only happened in the last five years. This saves farmers time and money for unnecessary transport and reduces the leverage of middlemen. 4 Mobile population coverage. sell prepaid cards and recharge mobile handsets. The fishing industry is also benefiting from a project using SMS to provide pricing information about Lake Victoria perch. from developing to developed. Rural areas—which comprise 88 per cent of Uganda’s population— are not being left behind. Telecom revenues as percentage of GDP 3. The Ugandan mobile scene has even invented its own vocabulary. One exploits the growing number of mobile phones by using Short Message Service (SMS) to relay information about prices in markets. A prepaid mobile card is the “seed” while adding value to it is “juicing. % . A number of programmes incorporating ICTs have been developed. broadband Internet cafés in the Republic of Korea. value and use communications. showing that just as the digital divide is wide across countries it is also wide within countries. of jobs have been created at mobile kiosks that offer public payphone services. Multipurpose Community Telecentres (MCTs) exist in several villages.6 1.

The ICT sector in Korea employed 1. 2000-02 (right). “spam”) and viruses are a problem and hacking incidents were up 185 per cent in 2002. All this cyber euphoria comes at a price.1: Tales of the information society in two countries (cont’d) Few countries have gone through the transformation from an agrarian to an industrial to an information society as quickly as the Republic of Korea. Internet users are defined as those aged six and over who use the Internet at least once a month. All schools are connected to the Internet with five million students.1b: The good and the bad of the information society Internet users.6 per cent in 1997 and the highest among the Organisation for Economic Box Figure 1.3 million people at the end of 2000 and is forecast to grow around five per cent through 2005. Unsolicited electronic mail (i. 5 . 2002. The share of the ICT industry was 13 per cent in 2000. famous for its PC bangs.1.e. where teenagers spend hours absorbed in cyber life. compared to only two per cent for overall employment. per cent. The average Internet user spends more than 50 hours a month online and more and more Koreans shop. Around a third of users shop online. to chemicals. up from 8. teachers and parents accessing information over the government-funded education portal. Source: ITU adapted from Korea Network Information Center and Ministry of Information and Communication (Republic of Korea). Republic of Korea Internet in the Republic of Korea. almost 70 per cent of stock market trading is done over the Web and there are 17 million Internet banking users. its manufacturing base has shifted from textiles. 2002 (left) and reported cases of computer hacking. then machinery and later electronics. stiff laws against spam and free counselling for those experiencing sexual harassment in cyberspace. and meeting other Internauts. Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. it is interesting to look at the way Koreans live the information society. Furthermore. or online game rooms. learn. ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Box 1. This has led to a number of measures to protect the information society including computer emergency response teams. Today knowledge and information products and services play an important and increasing role in the Korean economy. % Internet users Of which: Use Internet daily Use broadband Use online banking Shop online Use e-learning Have personal web page 8 11 31 64 72 71 59 Reported cases of computer hacking in the Republic of Korea 15'192 5'333 1'943 2000 2001 2002 Note: In the left chart. ICT penetration is real and everyone is adapting. As Korea’s economy has matured. including fast food chains. ICT products account for a third of Korea’s total exports. The Internet has also modified social interaction in Korea. and play on the Internet.6 To fully appreciate the impact of ICTs. where hamburgers now come with Internet access.

this report proposes a basic list of indicators—the e-ITU indicators— which. the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and associated indicators to monitor progress towards the reduction of poverty. the European Union’s eEurope indicators measure progress towards the information society among its members and candidate countries. by income group. “Countries” refers to the percentage of countries in each income group. Measuring access is therefore a key priority and a set of indicators is needed that is relevant to all countries of the world. household and community access to ICTs showing their relevance for different policy objectives such as universal service or access. From those. between relevance for the majority of countries or only for a minority.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 that access to ICTs is doubtless the most fundamental prerequisite for an inclusive information society. This report explains the different ways of measuring access to ICTs and offers a middle way between too much and too little. The focus on indicators reflects a growing trend by the international community towards the use of transparent and concrete measurements for monitoring countries’ performance. % 33 23 17 28 23 33 Countries 17 Internet survey 60 High Income Upper Middle Income Lower Middle Income Low income Note: Note: In both charts. where ICT use is crucial for electronic commerce. 2003. Existing indicators used to measure access to ICTs are identified. 23 per cent of all countries are in the high income group. The United Nations has adopted a set of development targets. % 23 17 21 28 30 33 Countries 17 NSO Online High Income Upper Middle Income Lower Middle Income Low income Distribution of countries by whether an Internet user survey is carried out. In the left chart. by income group. Chapter three looks at measuring ICT access in the key sectors of business. 2003. Source: ITU. In the ICT field. 7 The GDDS provides guidelines for countries on which indicators they should collect and disseminate in order to enhance transparency. 6 . the most relevant are selected. “NSO Online” refers to the percentage of countries in each income group whose national statistical office has a website. 60 per cent of all Internet user surveys have been carried out in high income nations. transparent and efficient public administration. For example. In the right chart. For example.8 In that spirit. and to encourage youth to participate in the information society. between what is achievable within existing constraints and what would require significantly increased resources. bearing in mind the trade-off in importance between developed and developing nations and the capacity of the latter to collect the proposed indicators. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was one of the first international agencies to design a framework for the presentation of standardized financial and economic statistics with the General Data Dissemination System (GDDS). 33 per cent of all national statistical offices with a website are in high income nations. ideally. “Internet survey” refers to the percentage of countries in each income group that have conducted an Internet user survey. The second chapter of the report discusses indicators for measuring individual. Chapter four examines the interrelationship Figure 1.4: The Statistical Divide Distribution of countries by income group by whether national statistical office has website (left) and whether and Internet user survey is carried out. every country should strive to collect to measure progress towards the information society. government and education. For example. 2003 (right) Distribution of countries by whether national statistical office (NSO) has website. hunger and other areas (see Chapter 4).

reveals that there is still a huge gap between a developing region and a single developed nation (Box Figure 1.2. % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Japan Africa Mobile. Box Figure 1. 2002 (right) Telephone subscribers. Africa and Japan. often to illustrate the large gap in access to telephone services. Japan and Africa. Africa Fixed. Tokyo and Japan Fixed and mobile telephone subscribers in Tokyo. mobile telephone subscribers and Internet users. comparison of Africa to Japan. Ironically however. there are more than twice as many telephone subscribers in Japan than in Africa. Japan has six times more Internet users than Africa and there are more broadband Internet users alone in Japan than all Internet users in Africa.1. fixed telephone subscribers. Chapter five examines the need for a relevant and inclusive ICT index to measure countries’ progress. between ICT indicators and the Millennium Development Goals. the gap in fixed telephone service between Tokyo and Africa was erased just after the publication of the Missing Link report (Box Figure 1. Although Africa has more than six times the population of Japan. 1984-2001 (left) and distribution of population. Tokyo Mobile. which have attracted considerable attention as a standard for identifying and measuring global development objectives.2: Dispelling the myths One cliché emerging from the seminal “Missing Link” report issued almost two decades ago was that “Tokyo has more telephones than the whole of the African continent”. millions 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Fixed. Tokyo Population Fixed Mobile telephone telephone Internet users Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. 9 Variations on this phrase have been repeated numerous times since then. There are also now more mobile phone subscribers and Internet users in Africa than there are in Tokyo. chapter six offers recommendations for improving the availability of information society access indicators and summarizes the e-ITU indicators. ACCESSING THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Box 1.2. Africa Distribution between Africa and Japan. for example. 7 . the situation has improved. left). 2002. right).2: Africa. The situation is worse with respect to newer ICTs. In conclusion. In one respect therefore. However.

org/News/facts/confercs.htm.itu. February). accessed November 5. accessed November 30. (2003.oecd.un.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/korea/index. Mwesige. 2003. accessed December 1. See: OECD. 2003. all of which capture and display information electronically. See the draft Declaration of Principles (WSIS/PC-3/DT/6) of November 14. (2001). 2003. accessed December 1. accessed November 30. (2003). (1984. “United Nations Conferences: What have they accomplished?” Available from: http://www.” In terms of use of ICT products.org/dataoecd/34/37/2771153. Independent Commission for World-Wide Telecommunication Development. accessed November 30. 2003. Available from: http://www.un.itu. 2003. (2003). P. Annex available from: http://www.int/wsis. See: “Information and Communication Technology” available from: http://unstats. The Internet in an African LDC: Uganda Case Study. The UN System of National Accounts has identified the components that make up the ICT sector in an economy.” Telematics and Informatics.itu. computer and telecommunication networks. 2003.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/uganda/uganda.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi. transmit and display data and information electronically. December).html. “Information Society Benchmarking” available from: http://europa.itu. Available from: http://www. this implies access to broadcasting. For more on Uganda.pdf. 2003.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/benchmarking/list/2002/index_en.html.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 1 World Summit on the Information Society website: http://www.htm. ITU.org/Applications/web/gdds/gddshome. accessed November 11. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 . “GDDS” available from: http://dsbb. accessed November 5. 2003. 2003. Measuring the Information Economy 2002. Broadband Korea: Internet Case Study. see ITU.pdf. The Missing Link. 2003 available from: http://www. accessed November 5. “Cyber elites: a survey of Internet Café users in Uganda.asp?lang=en&id=1104|1106. However few developing countries capture the level of detail required of these components to produce data on the ICT sector. These components can then be assembled to measure the overall ICT sector.org/unsd/cr/registry/docs/i31_ict. ITU.eu.imf. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined the ICT sector as “…manufacturing and services industries that capture.

then is that country better off than a country with 50 telephone lines owned by 50 different people? In a similar vein. they can be misleading.2 Measurement in practice Access to ICTs can be quantified in various ways. few governments presently track accessibility on a regular basis. the different indicators used worldwide are not always compatible. These factors have made it difficult to measure ICT development accurately and to elaborate targeted plans for enhancing access. often enshrined in laws that govern the sector. This includes indicators such as main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants or the percentage of the population that uses the Internet. If there are 100 telephone lines in a country all owned by the same person. this chapter examines ways of measuring access to ICTs in three major areas: individual. It then is a simple mathematical exercise to divide an ICT device or service by the population to derive a per capita indicator. or the percentage of the population that could theoretically use an ICT device or service. household and community access. Some indicators in this category are useful for tracking universal access. for example. Indicators that measure the availability of ICTs in the home such as the percentage of .1 Despite this. data from the Commonwealth of Independent States on main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants would place Moldova sixth. However in terms of main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants in rural areas. suggesting it has a more equitable distribution of telephone lines than countries that have a higher 9 nsuring universal service and access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) is in many countries a top national objective. Household measurements determine the level of universal service. This can also include access to shared facilities such as Internet cafés. Moldova ranks third. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS 2. Per capita measurement is the traditional method of illustrating individual access to ICTs. do not always use the most appropriate indicators. Indicators that revolve around the availability of services in population centres such as the number of villages with telephone service. This is because a per capita indicator does not reflect the differing socio-demographic composition of nations. Indicators that measure accessibility in terms of people. • Community. This also includes spatial indicators that measure accessibility in terms of coverage or distance from ICT facilities. With these obstacles in mind. Furthermore. • Household. given the different approaches taken by different countries. E 2. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS 2. While such per capita measures are convenient and useful for comparing general statistics across countries. For example.1 Introduction households with a telephone. One reason for this is that virtually all ICT service providers compile administrative records for operational and billing purposes.2. with indicators based on different categories: • Individual. a concern in many countries is equitable distribution of ICT services between urban and rural areas. Those governments that do measure and monitor access.

Zealand France USA 0 10 20 30 40 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database and RCC. coverage rollout can be a licence obligation in some countries and is therefore a measurable indicator. One possibility is to ask heads of households. 2001 (right) Overall and rural teledensity in the CIS. the prevalent availability of services. some countries with large family sizes may be as well off in terms of household telephone penetration as countries that. the number of homes with a telephone is quite specific.3 Furthermore. How can this be measured? Per capita measurements. so it is surprising that more countries do not provide it.2 There is an ideal indicator for measuring universal access based on mobile technologies: the percentage of the population that is covered by a mobile cellular signal. on a per capita basis. what options they have for using ICTs.1: Per capita distortions Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants. In the case of South Africa. 2001 Belarus Russia Moldova Ukraine Armenia CIS Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Georgia Tajikistan Teledensity and households with a telephone (%). left). The level of ICTs in households is also the way universal service—a fundamental policy objective of many nations— is measured. A number of mobile operators compile this statistic. right). Practically every country in the world now has at least one mobile cellular operator. through a survey.2.1. Another useful way of measuring universal access is mobile cellular coverage. it is difficult to determine what kind of targets should be set whereas for households. For example. only four per cent of the population is not covered by a mobile cellular signal so the level of universal access Brunei UAE . selected high income economies. With a per capita measure. 2001 (left) and main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants and percentage of households with a telephone. 2001 Teledensity Households with phone Persons per household Rural Overall 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Singapore Canada Bahrain Qatar 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 UK N. Universal service in telephones and newer ICTs such as personal computers or Internet access will not be achievable for many developing nations in the shortrun. regardless of whether they currently subscribe to the service. While the number of telephone lines per 100 subscribers gives only a general idea of access. Their concern should be to promote widespread accessibility of facilities outside the home. the ideal is that 100 per cent should have ICTs. The penetration rate of ICTs per 100 households is thus a more precise measurement of access than per capita indicators. The census found that six per cent of households did not have convenient access to a telephone of any type. overall and rural. it is not a difficult statistic to compile. Per capita measures can also be distorted because of demographic differences.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. particularly in view of its usefulness in measuring universal access. householders were asked whether they had access to a telephone at their neighbours’ home or other locations outside their home. Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). such as public payphones and Internet cafés.1. This is known as universal access — that is. overall penetration (Figure 2. In addition. This result indicates that South Africa’s rate of universal access is 94 per cent (Figure 2. In the 2001 South African census for example. are not so useful because they do not 10 give a clear indication of how many people have access. though they do not always report it on a systematic basis. such as public payphones per 100 inhabitants. left). have more telephone lines (Figure 2.

left). South Africa Telephone facilities available to households.2: Two ways of measuring universal access Household telephone access.3 1997 4.0 2.g.0 100.6 38.3.1 24. The latter figure is theoretical. And even though there were only 0.7 2000 2001 2002 2003 Mobile population coverage refers to the percentage of population that are within range of a cellular signal regardless of whether they are subscribers or not. based on the assumption that if a person had a mobile phone. In 1998. The time taken to reach a telephone also depends on what transport is available. 2001(left) and mobile population coverage. they could use it to make a call. Some countries have used other ways of measuring universal access. For example.2 10. it has to be noted that population dispersion is not the same across localities. Another concept of accessibility revolves around community measurements. Source: ITU adapted from Statistics South Africa and MTN. they suffer from the relativity of the measurement. per cent 1997-2003 (right). To avoid ambiguity. In this case.5 3.0 6. only half cited distance as being a barrier and only one per cent mentioned price.9 1999 12. While spatial indicators can be useful.4 Universal Access = 94. it would be preferable to use the availability of a telephone service outside the home and percentage of population covered by mobile as the preferred indicators for measuring universal access to telephones.0 19.3. The two figures reached. even though 40 per cent of households are more than 19 kilometres from a phone. It would be logical to measure the availability of services in these administrative units.4 Universal Service = 42. Surprisingly.3 main lines per 100 inhabitants in Ethiopia. Spatial indicators measure distance or time from ICT facilities.5 The data show that one quarter of poor rural households are more than one hour away from a telephone (Figure 2.2 3.4 Respondents were asked whether they used a telephone and if not why. towns and villages) within their territory. Nonetheless.3 30. since one desirable goal in expanding ICT access would be to provide all localities with ICTs. ten kilometres may not seem like a great distance on a motorcycle. per cent.2 18. they could equally be applied to other ICTs. almost twenty per cent of households reported that they used telephones. per cent Telephone in dwelling and cell-phone Telephone in dwelling only Cell-phone only At a neighbour nearby At a public telephone nearby At another location nearby At another location. The former figure is a more precise indicator of universal access since it is based on results that ask about the availability of telephone service. not nearby No access to a telephone Total 14. cities. they are both useful figures and the latter is particularly important in the absence of surveys. Ethiopia collected data about distances between households and the nearest telephone broken down by rural and urban locations (Figure 2. while two kilometres could be far to walk for an elderly person. This can be a valuable indicator. indicators such as the number of localities with a certain ICT could be measured.2. Note: is 96 per cent (Figure 2. right). South Africa has compiled data on the time to the nearest telephone for selected rural households. 94 and 96 per cent respectively. are remarkably close. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2. Most countries have statistics about the number of localities (e. An indicator such as the percentage 11 . While these measures are typically used in relation to telephone service. However. % 90 70 73 75 80 92 96 Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants 6.5 1998 7.0 Mobile population coverage.2. Over three-quarters mentioned there were other reasons for not using a telephone but did not specifically state them. right).

use and ownership helps identify barriers and has important policy implications. but the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. % 50 37 Distribution of households by time to nearest telephone. DVD players.45 minutes 18% 15 . tracks radios. television and fixed telephones) on the assumption that almost all households already possess them. Ownership/subscription means that the individual possesses an ICT device or subscribes to an ICT service.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. radio. For example. These are rural areas in South Africa of extreme poverty. km. South Africa. where comparable data are not 12 .1 hour 10% <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 >19 30 . It would be logical to assume that more populated villages would be covered first.1 The problems of comparability One difficulty often confronted when comparing ICT statistics is that different terms are used for measuring access.g. if the level of usage does not match the level of accessibility. Use means that a person is actually utilizing an ICT. For example. right). Ethiopia (left) and percentage distribution of nodal households by time to nearest telephone. South African nodal areas.). Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation and Statistics South Africa. does not track statistics on how many households have radios.4. 2. Conversely.3: Spatial dimensions of ICT access Percentage distribution of households by distance from telephone service. The drawback with these different focuses is that they result in a “statistical divide”. 2001. can reflect how convenient it is to use ICTs. 1998. televisions or fixed telephone lines and has chosen to focus on consumer electronics (e. Source: ITU adapted from Central Statistical Authority (Ethiopia). developing nations may assume that so few households have new technologies such as Internet access that they are not worth tracking. 1998. measured through purchase or subscription to an ICT good or service. with a serious lack of facilities and services. a clear distinction exists between use.30 minutes 24% Note: Right chart: Nodal areas are 13 specific areas for accelerated rural development. etc.2. Ideally. 2001(right) Distribution of households by distance from nearest telephone. access and ownership/subscription. use and possession/subscription. Developed countries may be interested in newer ICTs and may no longer collect data for older ones (e. Comparing access. Ethiopia. Tanzania on the other hand. The level of ownership. Countries should therefore try to be specific about what they mean or use the most appropriate term. Denmark. of villages with a telephone is not the same as the village population with access to a telephone. a household would be counted as having Internet access even if access was not available from the home. Another point of confusion is that some surveys ask households whether they have access to an ICT service. kilometres. % Urban Rural Ethiopia 46 40 > 1 hour 25% < 15 minutes 23% 16 8 1 6 11 2 14 0 14 17 12 2 15 9 45 min. this suggests that there are other barriers besides infrastructure that are affecting the take-up of ICTs. For example. Another important consideration is that the relevance of specific ICTs differs between developed and developing countries. computers and the Internet (Figure 2. they should compile statistics on all three: access. left). This makes country comparisons imperfect. .4. for instance. rather than asking whether the service is available from the home. television and fixed telephones but not access to the Internet (Figure 2.g. Access means that an individual could utilize an ICT because it is available but may not necessarily be doing so. but the head of household had access from work.

5 1. 2002 Tanzania. Radio is being combined with Internet technologies to overcome literacy and language barriers. 9 Data from developing countries suggest that while radio ownership is 2. access to broadcasting is far higher than access to other ICTs such as telephones or personal computers (Figure 2. Broadcast technologies also have a role to play as a development tool particularly in developing countries. In the case of Denmark. One common indicator. varies with limitations due to difficult terrain and a lack of electricity.6 1.4: Gaps in possession collecting and in possessions collected Percentage of households with various ICTs. 13 .8 The latter appears to be a significant barrier. 2002.1 Broadcasting Radio and television broadcasting is the predominant means of electronic information and entertainment in all countries. Households possessing consumer durables. radio stations download information from the Internet and re-disseminate it orally to the surrounding community. Household possessing consumer durables.9 Source: ITU adapted from Statistics Denmark and National Bureau of Statistics (Tanzania).7 2. the lack of data about household possession of fixed telephones means that this cannot be tracked in relation to mobile. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2.6 For example.g. considered to be “old”. available for all countries. personal digital assistant).5. 2001/2002 CD player Mobile phone PC Internet access Answering machine Video camera DVD-player Fax 13 21 21 46 59 72 84 92 Radio/radio cassette Dish antenna / decoder Video Television Record / tape player Computer Telephone Complete music system 3. Broadcasting is also important to monitor because of its fusion with other ICTs. In this situation. laptop computer.3. This is important because a fixed telephone typically offers more and cheaper solutions for Internet access than a mobile. Data from Africa show a strong relationship between the availability of electricity and home television set ownership (Figure 2. desktop computer.0 2.2 0. Another disadvantage relates to the fact that some ICTs. This makes compiling indicators on access to information delivered over broadcast networks very relevant.7 51. coverage. The average Norwegian spends over two hours a day watching television and over one hour listening to the radio (Figure 2. whereas the decline of certain technologies can be an extremely useful factor to measure for analytical purposes. are not tracked. Unlike radios. left). it is possible to make telephone calls and access the Internet over cable television networks.2. Denmark (left) and Tanzania (right) Denmark.3 Indicators There are numerous ICTs from the mundane (radio) to the futuristic (global positioning systems) as well as many sub classifications (e. batteries cannot easily power a television set. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one of the main reasons consumers opt for electricity in developing nations is to power television sets.4 1. left). Time use surveys for most developed nations show that watching television is the activity people devote the most time to after work and sleep. in local languages.6. In developing nations. This section highlights the most relevant ICTs for measuring household and individual access to the information society. perhaps even more than affordability. Collecting official data for all of them is beyond the capacity of most nations. right). 2.5.7 Most countries in the world have radio and television stations.

right).92 Rural households with selected facilities. The conventional indicators for measuring broadcast penetration are the number of radio and television sets and the percentage of households with a radio or Figure 2.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. % 80 2. 14 .6: Electricity and ICTs Relation between households with electricity and television (left) and rural households with selected facilities (right). millions 1'424 1'102 Norway.3 Ghana Senegal Namibia Mozambique Source: ITU adapted from national statistical offices. 2002.0 43. roughly equally distributed between rural and urban areas.3 20 40 60 Households with electricity. 2002.0 TV 47. Fixed telephone refers to main telephone lines. mainly attributable to the more limited availability of electricity in rural areas (Figure 2. %. various years Electricity 65. cassettes or records and not over radio. Norway (right) ICTs in developing nations.6 20 12.0 0. mobile refers to mobile cellular subscribers.9 5.5: The most popular ICTs ICTs in developing nations. minutes Television Radio 87 42 31 27 22 14 146 530 519 138 184 Music Newspapers Home PC Internet Radio TV Fixed Mobile telephone PC Internet Books Note: Left chart: Radio and TV refers to sets. selected African countries. % 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 R2 = 0. PC refers to personal computers and Internet refers to users. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database and Statistics Norway.0 5. there is a significant gap for television. per day in minutes. various years Electricity and television in Africa 60 Households with TV.10 One implication is that statistics on the number of homes with electricity should be collected since the lack of a suitable energy source impacts the ability to use other ICTs.4 0. Right chart: Music refers to listening to DVDs. 2002. millions. 2002 (left) and time used for different mass media.3 Radio 57.0 2.6. Time used for different mass media on an average day.

This proved less useful as an indicator over time given the increasing number of telephone sets in the home. in some countries. In order to enhance comparability. In others. Also.3. Initially. wireless local loop (WLL) technology severs the traditional concept of the main line represented by a copper line.9 1. A main line has traditionally referred to the connection— typically a copper wire—from a subscriber to the telephone company’s switching exchange. France).12 These are derived from sales of sets or surveys asking households whether they have a television.1 0. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2. The indicator has evolved with market trends and technological development. 2.0 35.7: Cable television indicators France.2 Source: ITU adapted from Association française des opérateurs de réseaux multiservices (AFORM. ISDN converts a single physical line into virtual channels. This is apparent when licence data is contrasted with census or household surveys on the number of homes with a broadcast reception set. In this regard a number of useful indicators exist (Figure 2.7 24.2.2 Fixed telephones ITU has been publishing data on telephones since 1972 in its annual Yearbook of Statistics. Some countries with licensing regimes collect data on the number of licences.g. 2002 Per cent of households France: Internet and telephone subscribers via cable television. 2002 31 Dec. % 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Cable modem Internet subscribers as % of cable TV subscribers Cable telephone subscribers as % of cable TV subscribers Households Households passed by cable TV Households passed by cable Internet Cable TV subscribers Cable modem Internet subscribers Cable telephone subscribers 24’651’000 8’810’270 6’122’067 3’430’194 282’992 56’185 100.7). 30 in Europe and 23 in North America and Japan). which meant that incumbent operators no longer knew how many there were. Few developed countries compile data on households with a radio and some do not ask about the availability of a television set.8 13.14 This led to the practice.8). particularly in Europe and Japan of including ISDN channels in main line statistics. all countries should provide a breakdown of how their main telephone line figure is computed (Figure 2. Technological changes have since blurred this definition. or attached to private branch exchanges (PBXs) in companies. Basic rate ISDN provides two channels while primary rate provides many more (e.11 Few countries collect the number of broadcast sets and thus most data are estimates. For example. Cable television networks can be built to provide telephone service and Internet access. This statistic is often used as a proxy for household availability. the number of telephone sets was compiled. The emergence of integrated services digital networks (ISDN) has also dramatically impacted the concept of the main line. However not all people pay the licence fee so the true figure is underrepresented. 15 .13 This makes broadcast data another source of the statistical divide with radio ownership often of more relevance to the least developed nations. liberalization of equipment markets in many countries allowed consumers to choose their own sets. telephone service is provided via coaxial cable over pay television networks. Therefore the availability of cable television statistics is important for understanding a country’s ICT potential. television. This led to a preference for lines in operation— also referred to as main or direct exchange lines (DELs) —as the primary indicator for measuring telephone access.

9.8: Breaking down main lines Main telephone lines in Canada. Furthermore. While main lines — including ISDN channels — have grown. ISDN subscribers -Basic Rate 19’160’211 A. millions Main lines in advanced economies.9: The death of ISDN? Main telephone line in advanced economies. PSTN access lines B. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. allows users to access the Figure 2. 2002 95’853 801’861 66’798 133’596 Wired Access Lines 96% -Primary Rate 29’055 668’265 ISDN channels 4% Total wired access lines (A+B) (telephone subscribers) 19’256’064 19’962’072 Note: a) Each basic rate ISDN subscriber is equivalent to two channels. like ISDN. PSTN access lines C. b) Each primary rate ISDN subscriber is equivalent to 23 channels. advanced economies. millions (left) and ISDN and Broadband Internet subscribers (right). millions 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1995 PSTN lines ISDN channels Subscribers.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. left). ISDN channels -Basic Rate a) -Primary Rate b) Total voice grade equivalents (A+C) (main lines) 19’160’211 Distribution of main telephone lines in Canada. which negates the need for a second physical line for a facsimile machine or dial-up Internet access. millions 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 ISDN Broadband Internet 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. fixed telephone lines in service peaked at 502 million in advanced economies in 1998 and have been declining since then (Figure 2. 16 . advanced economies. ISDN channels have provided an artificial boost to main line statistics. 2002 A. asynchronous digital subscriber line (ADSL). One reason for this is ISDN itself. Another reason is the growing substitution of mobile phones for fixed ones.

9. the fixed line is still the predominant household telephone service (Figure 2. A key statistic is the number of homes with a fixed telephone. % 10 16 ADSL ISDN Multiple answers 72 Dial-up 7 Telephone line Cable modem 4 Wireless 1 Other Mobile Fixed Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database and ITU adapted from Gallup Europe. It may only be a matter of time before ISDN disappears altogether. left). 2002. The few nations where ISDN continues to grow are those where there are bottlenecks to broadband access and ISDN is the only option for faster than dial-up access. left). .13. Mobile telephone subscriptions have surpassed fixed lines in many countries. Another predicament with the traditional teledensity indicator (main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants) is that it is no longer the sole gauge of telephone access. One problem with national surveys is that it is often unclear whether a home telephone refers to only fixed Figure 2. Main telephone lines are also the predominant method for Internet access since they provide the physical connection for dial-up. 2000-2002.16 A number of developed nations do not compile this statistic on the questionable assumption that they believe all households already have a fixed telephone. both fixed and mobile.2. A way around double counting is to use effective telephone density whereby either fixed or mobile teledensity. a victim of cheaper and faster broadband alternatives. 2002. selected countries (left) and Internet access from the home. 17 . producing bi-annual reports with details by state. There were 60 million broadband subscribers in advanced economies compared to 34 million ISDN subscribers in 2002 (Figure 2.10: Still the most popular for homes and Internet Percentage of households with fixed and mobile telephones. EU. Broadband consumer technologies such as ADSL and cable modem access have now eclipsed ISDN as the main method for consumers moving beyond dial-up access. the number of main telephone lines and the associated penetration figure remains an important indicator. One alternative is to combine all telephone subscribers. is used. Furthermore. Despite the definitional issues and challenge posed by the rise of mobile phones.10.15 This makes it difficult to find an ideal solution for measuring telephone density. right).4). 2000-2002 Canada Germany New Zealand UK Japan Slovenia Spain Portugal St. whichever is higher. China (97. Lucia Panama 14 22 40 47 60 59 78 66 58 58 76 48 70 97 96 94 93 92 91 90 Internet access method from the home. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Internet while keeping their telephone line free for voice communications. distribution by method. This results in double counting since the indicator includes subscribers that have both fixed and mobile phones.11). income and other socio-economic variables (Figure 2. the rise of mobile shows that fixed telephones in homes are declining in developed economies that compile the two statistics (Figure 2. The United States has been at the forefront of tracking home phone ownership. to compute a total telephone density indicator.8) and Canada (97. European Union (right) Percentage of households with a telephone. ISDN or ADSL (Figure 2. The highest rates of fixed telephones in households are to be found in Taiwan. In most developed nations and many developing ones. right). the traditional indicator for measuring universal telephone service. limiting its analytical usefulness.10.

% 96 95 94 93 Household telephone penetration by social. 2002 Taiwan. demographic and economic characteristics.right). 1983-2002 (left) and breakdown by socio-economic characteristics. lines or also includes mobile. Ideally the following three questions should be asked in household surveys: whether the household has a fixed line only. China Luxembourg Israel Hong Kong. China Italy Sweden Iceland Czech Republic United Kingdom Finland 0 20 40 60 80 Mobile population coverage and density in the Maldives. 18 15-24 Black 91 Hispanic Age USA 92 2-3 persons .1 White 1 person 79.3 90. a proxy can sometimes be used. USA. USA.5 95. 2002 (left) and mobile population coverage.13. both a fixed and mobile phone or only a mobile phone (Figure 2.7 < $5'000 $75'000+ 96.3 96. The number of residential telephone lines per 100 households is calculated by dividing the number of residential telephone lines by the number of Figure 2.9 90 89 1983 86 89 92 95 98 01 Race Income Size Source: ITU adapted from Federal Communications Commission (USA). 2002 99.12: Mobile indicators Top ten economies by mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants.7 88.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. actual and effective mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Maldives (right) Top ten economies by mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants. per 100 inhabitants 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1997 98 Population coverage Effective density Density 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 02 03 Postpaid Prepaid 100 120 99 2000 01 Note: Right chart: Effective density refers to mobile subscribers divided by the population with mobile coverage multiplied by 100.11: Telephones in homes In the United States.2 92. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. For countries in which surveys on home telephone penetration is not available.2 91.5 97. The percentage of homes with a fixed telephone can be derived from administrative records if the share of residential lines is available. 2002 (right) Households with a telephone.

One of the most useful indicators of universal access is the percentage of the population covered by a mobile cellular network (see discussion in section 2.13.2). 2001.12. The growing use of mobile phones for data and text applications makes tracking that area important. one country where both are tracked. Mobile density. One indicator that can be derived from the level of coverage is the effective mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants. The percentage of homes with a mobile telephone is another useful indicator for tracking universal service.2. Statistics regarding mobile subscriptions should include the split between subscription-based and prepaid accounts (Figure 2. 18 per cent of homes have only a mobile phone compared to ten per cent that have only a fixed (Figure 2.12. left). home ownership of fixed telephones has been declining since 1990 as a result of mobile phones (Figure 2. This indicator is calculated by adjusting the population to those with coverage (Figure 2. 19 . right). In Finland. left). This derivation has limitations since business lines can be reported as residential particularly where residential subscription is cheaper.3 Mobile telephones Mobile indicators are critical for analysing access to telephone service given that in most countries there are now more mobile than fixed telephone subscribers. a more Figure 2. It is difficult to determine whether this is caused by inactive prepaid accounts or growing ownership of more than one mobile telephone. Inhabitants who are covered by a mobile cellular signal have the potential to subscribe to the network whether or not they actually do so. 1990-2002 (left) and South Africa. This is unfortunate.13. By 1998 the number of homes with mobile phones had exceeded those with a fixed one. According to the 2001 South African census.13: Households with more mobile phones than fixed In Finland. it suggests that bottlenecks in access are more due to affordability than to infrastructure shortcomings.17 Although the number of short message services (SMS)—a precursor to more intensive mobile data use—is a popular indicator (Figure 2. per cent 100 80 60 40 20 0 90 92 94 96 98 2000 2002 South Africa: Households with a telephone.14. or the number of mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants. By 2003. Other distortions in the results of this derivation are caused by the inclusion of second lines and ISDN channels. as it is particularly useful to track these two indicators together. left). per cent Mobile Fixed None 58% Both fixed & mobile 14% Only fixed 10% Only mobile 18% Source: ITU adapted from national sources. Data from developing nations also confirm that trend. Many developed nations now survey the percentage of households with a mobile telephone even when they do not ask for the number of fixed lines. the percentage of Finnish homes with a mobile phone stood at 92 compared to just 64 for a fixed line.3. has surpassed 100 in some nations. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS households and multiplying by 100. 2. 2001(right) Finland: Households with a telephone. Where there is a large gap between population coverage and penetration. right). sometimes expressed as the level of take-up of a particular service.

right). a general rule of thumb is that they are changed every three to five years. libraries. use of import data . China Hong Kong. Internet cafés. only a few countries publish data on the number of PCs. 2. 2002 Mobile telephone Internet subscribers as % of total mobile subscribers. is the number of mobile customers that use high-speed Internet services.15. the number of PCs sold) in a given country and year. data that is sometimes available from customs departments of national governments.3. The licence conditions often compel operators to achieve a specific level of population coverage by certain dates. Plus. China 24 13 7 4 111 Japan Korea (Rep.18 Though there is no precise methodology for determining PC replacement rates.0% 167 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. etc.) Japan New Zealand Australia Taiwan. homes.4% 1. relevant one may be the percentage of mobile subscribers that use SMS. 2002. Therefore most estimates regarding the stock of PCs are based on shipments (e.19 It is a major drawback that. collecting data would involve surveying all the places where there might be a PC: schools. China 7. offices. Apart from wear and tear. Unlike television sets.9% 1. advanced Asia-Pacific economies (right) Text messages per subscriber per month.8% 2. In some countries. as software updates require faster machines. but also because it is the leading gateway to Internet access.) Singapore Australia Taiwan. an overall country figure for the number of PCs could be estimated by adding up the last five years sales (Figure 2.14: Mobile Internet Number of text messages per mobile subscriber per month (left) and mobile phone Internet subscribers as percentage of total mobile subscribers. left). Annual shipment data can be multiplied by an estimated replacement rate to obtain an approximation of PCs for the country. Internet access is occasionally bundled into the price of mobile subscription. However.2% 45.14. 2002 184 Singapore Korea (Rep.4 Personal computers Access to a personal computer (PC) is important not only because is it an information device in own right. Related to this indicator. China New Zealand Hong Kong.4% 4.0% 81. PCs are useful for developing basic computer skills prior to navigating the Internet. so a better indicator might be the number of mobile customers that use a mobile Internet service.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. This would include the number of mobile customers that subscribe to a mobile Internet service (Figure 2. In light of all these factors.g. The life of a PC will vary depending on various factors such as wear and tear and obsolescence. and replacement rates differ between developing and developed nations with the former hanging on to PCs for longer. reliable data on the number of PCs sold is not available for many developing nations. The availability of high-speed Internet access should be a policy indicator in countries that have licensed third generation networks. Mobile indicators that measure Internet access and high-speed data availability are also useful. as with so many other statistics. Despite their importance. A surrogate for sales is PC import figures. 20 that are basically found in homes or hotel rooms. computers also become obsolete. This would be captured by the percentage of the population covered by high-speed mobile Internet access.

000s 600 500 400 300 200 100 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Accumulated sales PC stock Annual sales PCs in the Republic of Korea. some national statistical offices as well as industry associations and consulting companies publish data on the number of PCs. This can enhance the analysis of national digital divides. The advantage of official household statistics is that the methodology is usually sound and the data on ICT use are normally publicly available. has limitations.16. government and households (Figure 2. right).17. Often only value rather than volume data is available. More developing nations have begun asking households about the availability of PCs particularly as a result of the 2000/01 round of censuses (Figure 2. if PCs were assembled in the country from imported parts. Additionally. Customs data would also not include undeclared imports. Yet it is remarkable how little we know about the Internet’s true extent—particularly in developing nations.2. the Association of Spanish Internet Users has been collecting data since 1996 on the number of adults in Spain that use a computer (Figure 2.21 A growing number of national statistical agencies compile data on the percentage of households with a computer through censuses or on a more regular basis through household surveys.3. left).15. Given the limitations with determining the number of PCs in a country. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2. for instance on income.16. alternative measures should be considered. left). right). right). but also provides information about their socio-economic characteristics (Figure 2.22 Virtually all developed countries report this statistic allowing rankings of the top countries by PC household penetration (Figure 2. 2002 (right) PCs in Argentina. education and other characteristics of the head of household. Data could also be aggregated from surveys of ICT usage in business. some of the imported PCs may be later exported.)). the National Statistics Office carried out a 2002 survey that not only determines the number of people using computers.17. gender.5 Internet Most references to the digital divide and information society revolve around access to the Internet. 2002 4'000 3'500 3'000 2'500 2'000 1'500 1'000 500 Establishments 43% Households 57% Note: Left chart: PC stock is derived from adding up sales for the last five years. Also. Despite the data difficulties. Additionally. they would not be counted. education. PC-related statistics collected by some statistical agencies and industry associations include the number of people that use a computer. location. this data can be cross-correlated with other data. ITU compiles statistics for countries in which shipment or import data is available based on the methodology described above. Sufficient data is now available for many developed economies to analyze developments over time. For example. Source: ITU adapted from Prince and Cooke (Argentina) and National Statistical Office (Korea (Rep.15: PCs Estimated number of PCs in Argentina (left) and the Republic of Korea. 2. While most developed nations now have regular Internet user surveys—either conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO) 21 .20 In Malta.

Bahrain. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database.4 1. 2002. or private polling organizations—there have been few such surveys in developing nations and none in the lowest income countries (Table 2.16: Computer use Computer users in Spain as percentage of adult population (left) and socio-economic characteristics of computer users in Malta. 2002 (right) Computer users in Spain.1.5 14.1 59. Comparability revolves around three areas: age. 2002 Bahrain Chile Mauritius Brazil Malaysia South Africa Paraguay Maldives Tanzania Albania 1.4 6.0 Tertiary Student 7.5 18.2 13.1 61. Although Internet user surveys are available for developed regions.) Canada 75. in the United States. Box 2.8 4. 65 per cent of all 15-24 year olds in Malta use a computer. Canada. selected developing economies (right). % 92. China Australia Korea (Rep.0 Economically inactive 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Feb/Mar 96 Use computer Used computer in last month Primary 55+ 38.17: PC homes Top ten economies by percentage of households with a computer (left) and percentage of households with a computer. South Africa.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. 2002 Top ten economies by percentage of households with a computer. Source: ITU adapted from AUI (Spain) and National Statistics Office. Data for Malaysia and Maldives refer to 2000. government .0 33. Iceland. 22 This is because the surveys do not follow a standard methodology.2 62. Malta.2 30. by socioeconomic characteristic.9 Percentage of households with a computer.4 8. frequency of use and access device. For example.5 65. Data for Albania. Figure 2.6 77. % of adult population Percentage of computer users in Malta.0 73. For age.1 Apr/May 97 Oct/Nov 98 Feb/Mar 00 Apr/May 01 Sex Age Education Economic status Malta Note: The right chart shows the percentage of computer users within each category.0 60. 2002 Sweden Iceland Denmark Singapore Norway Switzerland Hong Kong.6 6.1 72.0 65.4 Note: Data for Norway and Sweden refer to household members with access to computer in the home.8 65.9 10.1). comparability is still a problem.0 64. Switzerland and Tanzania refer to 2001.23 • The age from which Internet use is measured varies.1 Female 15-24 Male 34.2 20.

6 50.24 The problem with just using adult penetration is that a large segment of the Internet market.3 55.3 50. ITU data on Internet users reflects the number reported in a survey and divides that by the entire population to obtain a penetration figure (Figure 2. 2002 Top 10 countries by Internet user penetration in sample population. % Iceland 12+ Sweden 16+ Denmark 16+ Singapore 15+ Canada 15+ Finland 16+ Netherlands 15+ Norway 13+ USA 3+ Korea (Rep. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS surveys measure access from the age of three. • Access device. Source: ITU adapted from national Internet user surveys and ITU estimates. Data for Japan also includes users only accessing the Internet from mobile phones. and with uniform age cohorts. surveys measure access from the age of six.5 Mobile The left chart shows the number of Internet users divided by the surveyed population (shown to the right of the country name).2 44. 2002.18. Note: 23 . % Iceland Sweden USA Korea (Rep.9 51. is being excluded. within the last three months. The frequency of use in surveys ranges from within the last year. For example. • Frequency of use. 81 per cent of all Japanese mobile customers also subscribe to a mobile Internet provider. this is starting to change. Internet access through mobile phones has become popular. This also has relevance in benchmarking to determine why some countries have a higher rate of youth access than others. left). estimating the number of Internet users is guesswork. These differences could be reconciled by showing Internet use from a common starting age. A minimum commitment to the Internet would be using it at least once a month. Internet surveys often have an upper boundary for age that affects comparability.) 6+ 64 64 63 62 62 61 59 57 71 81 Top ten countries by Internet user penetration in total population. monthly. For example. while in Europe many national surveys start from the age of 16 (Figure 2. Until recently. in the Republic of Korea. data for Singapore refer to those aged 15 and over using the Internet divided by the total 15 and over population. Another was that countries could have a low number of hosts— either because they were not picked up when the host Figure 2.2. Netherlands and the United States are estimated.9 57.2 55.) Japan Canada Denmark Finland Netherlands Singapore 64. Some 10 per cent of Japanese Internet users only access the Internet from their mobile phones. By the same token. this figure should be proposed as a common limit. youth. 2002.18. Another area where surveys are inconsistent is the definition of how often a person should use the Internet before being considered a user.8 50. Data for Canada. Internet users were estimated by applying a multiplier to the number of Internet host computers. However with the development of Internet access through mobile phones. weekly and daily. In most developing nations however. It would be preferable for surveys to ask for a range of periods rather than just one in the hope of making the data more internationally comparable. In the case of Japan. According to administrative records.18: Who is number one? Top ten countries ranked by Internet users per 100 inhabitants in the survey age population (left) and in the total population (right). In the early years of the Internet. data for the Republic of Korea refer to those six years old and over using the Internet divided by the total population of the country. The right chart shows the reported number of Internet users divided by the total population for country. before commercial services became available. virtually all users utilized the Internet through a personal computer.3 51. right).25 One problem with this technique was that the multiplier was not very scientific.4 54.

Last year. Urban areas. Mumbai.3 43. Usage in last 3 months. Usage in last month.0 Age 18+ 18+ 16+ 15+ 2+ 18+ 15+ 6+ 6+ 15+ 16+ 16+ 15+ 16+ 11+ 10+ 16+ 10+ 15+ 12+ 18+ 15+ 15+ 18+ 16+ 15+ 6+ 6+ 15+ 16+ 16+ 18+ 15+ 12+ All 12+ 10+ 13+ 12+ 15+ 16+ 15+ 18+ 15+ 15+ 15+ 16+ 16+ 14+ All All 18+ 18+ 16+ 3+ 18+ Source TNS AusStats Eurostat TNS Nielsen//NetRatings Vitosha Statistics Canada SUBTEL CNNIC CYSTAT Eurostat Eurostat Emor Eurostat Mediametrie Federal Statistical Office Eurostat C&SD SIBIS Statistics Iceland TNS TNS Amárach TNS Eurostat JAMPRO MPHPT KRNIC SIBIS Baltic Eurostat TNS National Statistics Office Central Statistics Office COFETEL Statistics Netherlands ACNielsen Gallup Apoyo SIBIS Eurostat SIBIS TNS IDA SIBIS SIBIS INE Statistics Sweden WEMF FIND National Statistical Office OECD TNS National Statistics NTIA CAVECOM Note Usage in last month. Last month. Usage in last 3 months.0 38.0 28. Last month.0 18. Last month. Last month. Including access from mobile phones.1: Internet user surveys around the world Population using Internet Economy Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong.0 52.0 57.0 14. Home users only.6 44.1 16. Delhi.9 10. Usage in last 6 months. Usage in last month.0 57.0 26.0 42. Usage in last 3 months. Regular. Usage in last month.6 52.7 64.0 37. Past month.7 71.0 17.8 12. Usage in last month. Usage in last three months. Usage in last 3 months. Past month. Usage in last year.8 10.” Only metropolitan Lima. Jewish population.1 4.) Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Malta Mauritius Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Poland Portugal Romania Serbia Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.0 18.7 48.3 9.0 23.9 21. Usage in last month.8 17. 24 .0 36. China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Korea (Rep. Usage in last 3 months. 2 largest cities only.0 4.0 39.0 20.4 36. Last month.0 45.0 57. Usage in last year.0 58.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 2.0 62.0 53.2 18.0 16. Usage in last month. Last 3 months.9 24. Usage in last month.7 4.0 63. Ever used Internet. Usage in last month. Usage in last 3 months.0 36.1 38. “Habitual users.0 5.0 81. % calculated on entire population. Last 3 months. Usage in last 3 months.4 28. Usage in last month. Once a week. Last 3 months. Usage in last 3 months. Calcutta and Chennai only.1 59.0 6.8 46.6 23. China Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States Venezuela Year 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2000 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2001 2000 2002 2002 2001 2002 Per cent 15. Urban Peninsular only.6 9. Usage in last year. Source: ITU adapted from sources shown in table. Usage in last 3 months.4 13.0 55.8 21.

Box Figure 2. Therefore.1. It is far more likely for family members to be using the Internet if they have a fixed telephone line. One would assume that the more lenient the definition. left). they should all produce similar results. 25 . Sample ages range from those older than 14 to those older than 16. • Sample size. some developed nations already have a number of surveys. Take Spain for example where at least six Internet user surveys have been conducted. The first was in March and the last in the fourth quarter. 2002 65 56 42 22 15 17 20 42 40 28 37 40 69 62 77 64 60 49 60 56 Gallup NSO UK Fin. • Method.1: So how many are online? Internet users per 100 inhabitants. it does not seem that the nine-month range in survey dates could have had a significant impact. 2002 50 44 42 29 23 19 Internet users per 100 inhabitants. the smaller the estimate of the number of people online. However at those ages. the percentage of Internet users increased between one to two per cent in 2002. • Frequency of use.Spain Italy Aust. showed the smallest number of users online. each year only accounts for around one per cent of the population.1. they do not. • Date. In almost every country. What can explain such large variations? • Age.1: Over surveyed While many developing nations have yet to carry out Internet user surveys. In general. It is interesting to contrast the results of surveys carried out by Gallup for European Union nations with those conducted by national statistical agencies. usage in the last three months. right). The two surveys that used the largest samples sizes and personal interviews were conducted by national organizations. Spain. The use of interviews only by telephone would have an impact since ten per cent of Spanish households do not have fixed telephones. the higher the percentage of Internet users. surveys that only carry out telephone interviews would tend to overestimate the number of Internet users. The other surveys were conducted by organizations where Spain was just one of several countries surveyed. assuming the surveys follow appropriate methodological practice. 2002 Internet users per 100 inhabitants.2. Gallup reports a higher Internet penetration than the national statistical agencies (Box Figure 2. it is not clear that the frequency of use had much bearing in the different results. The surveys do not all use the same age. The population questioned for the surveys ranged from around one thousand to over 50’000. Therefore. In reality. Yet the survey that had the most generous definition. age is not a significant factor in explaining the large differences in the survey results.Lu Gerugal ria xem.many bourg Source: ITU adapted from Gallup-Europe and Eurostat. European Union. This is significant because the European Union has been using the Gallup data to analyze Internet diffusion in the region. with estimates of the percentage of persons using the Internet ranging from over half to less than a fifth of the population (Box Figure 2. In theory. Therefore. The period over which a person is considered an Internet user was not always specified. According to one of the surveys. the larger the population sample. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Box 2. selected European Union members. the size of the sample seems to have a bearing on the results. Therefore. Therefore. The smaller samples used only telephone interviewing techniques whereas the larger ones used personal interviews or a combination of the two.Denland mark Nielsen SIBIS EU TNS AUI INE Greece Port. The surveys were all conducted throughout 2002. One has carried out Internet user surveys in Spain since 1996 whereas the other is the national statistical agency which carried out its first Internet user survey .

It is not known how many users there are across the country. An Internet survey carried out in Jamaica in January 2003 found that there were almost 675’000 users in the country.8 4. .19: The shrinking the digital divide? Internet users per 100 inhabitants in Peru.31 The survey found that 20 per cent of Lima’s inhabitants had used the Internet at least once. five times more than what had been previously estimated (Figure 2. Beginning in January 2000. This has profound implications on assumptions about the global digital divide. In January 2001. Under the revised formula. wife and child).3 million in October 2000 compared to 3.5 Estimate Survey Peru.8 3. INEI.com.g.9 million with the old methodology. the formula was changed to account for the growing volume of excess bandwidth. the incumbent telecommunication operator has estimated the number of Internet users by interviewing Internet cafés about the number of clients they receive. husband. The Internet user to subscriber ratio in Togo works out to 17. Another case comes from Peru where a survey was conducted in the metropolitan area of the capital Lima in November 2000. 30 Instead of previous estimates of five per cent. 2002 Jamaica.6 10.7 9. 2001 Mexico.0 Ratio of survey Internet users / previous estimate 1. or more than five times the multiplier commonly used. before and after surveys 2. seriously challenging the notion that the number of users can be estimated based on a multiple of the number of subscribers. Thailand used an interesting model for estimating the number of Internet users in the absence of formal surveys. 2000 Thailand. NECTEC. the Thai National Statistical Office launched a survey with the results showing there were some 3.9 3. the estimated number of users was 2.edu).19).5 million Internet users in Thailand (Figure 2. The resulting figure gives Togo the highest penetration rate among West African nations even though its per capita income is among the lowest. The results of recent surveys suggest the number of users in other developing nations may be underestimated to an even greater extent than in Thailand. again the question of what multiplier to use is problematic.27 While the number of subscribers may set a minimum threshold.8 5.9 2. 26 . .28 There is also growing evidence that the use of Internet cafés in developing nations is increasing rapidly.26 As time went on and Internet subscriber data became available.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 count was done or national organizations used generic top-level domain names (e. the Internet penetration rate in Jamaica was found to be closer to 26 per cent. In Togo.19).4 2. Either Togo is overestimating the number of users or its neighbours are underestimating. Mexico and Jamaica Internet users per 100 inhabitants. A widely used assumption is that most dial-up subscriptions are in households with an average of three users (e.g. This method has become less reliable due to “free subscriptions” and prepaid cards. but just using the figure for Lima meant that there were at least twice as many Internet users as had been estimated in the past.9 1.2 25. Thailand.29 It was based on the assumption that each kbps of domestic and international bandwidth served 4 and 11 Internet users respectively. One Figure 2. COFETEL and JAMPRO. 2003 Source: ITU adapted from OSIPTEL. a multiplier of subscribers was used to estimate the number of users.

2. even the most advanced economies in the Latin America region are still far behind their North American neighbours in terms of household ICT availability (Figure 2. Argentina and Bahrain refer to 2001. a primary location of Internet access is an Internet café. selected developing nations (right) 2002 Top 10 economies by availability of Internet access in household. left).8 62. In other Latin American countries for which 27 . In Peru. The evidence suggests that anything short of a proper survey to estimate the number of Internet users is essentially guesswork. It is also useful to know how many homes have broadband Internet access. 2002. Care must be taken in interpreting this statistic. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. 71 per cent of Lima’s Internet users utilized Internet cafés as their main location.20.8 6.0 Korea (Rep.0 52.5 51. In other words.4 59. For the immediate future. another indicator is the percentage of households with Internet access from home.) USA Note: Data for Mexico. if citizens in most developing nations are to have access to ICTs.2 31.4 Community access indicators The vast majority of households in developing nations do not have modern ICTs such as computers and Internet access. Lucia. The growing importance of broadband Internet access means that related indicators should be collected.7 0. A number of developing countries are also beginning to compile this indicator (Figure 2.4 59. Most developed nations consider this a key indicator of the information society and almost all now compile the percentage of households with Internet access in the home from annual household surveys (Figure 2. they would count a household as having Internet access if the home did not have its own access but members of the household used the Internet from work or school.6 10. Broadband may be defined as technologies that provide speeds greater than 128 kbps in at least one direction. St.20: Internet in the home Top ten economies by availability of Internet access in the home (left) and percentage of households with Internet access from the home.20 right).6 12.32 This would include ADSL. of the reasons for the underestimation was widespread use of Internet cafés. 2002 Sweden Netherlands Iceland Singapore Denmark Norway HK. For example. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2.21). In the most recent survey carried out in June 2002.3 50. The number of broadband subscribers is divided by the population to obtain the number of broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants (Figure 2. The situation is even worse for other developing countries in the region and around the world. it will have to come from elsewhere such as at the homes of relatives or friends. Lucia Mexico Paraguay Peru 1. In addition to individual Internet use. Some countries report the number of households with Internet access. % Percentage of households with Internet access from the home.2 9. at work. This assumption is borne out by surveys in developing countries that show that in many. regardless of location. This raises the question of how many other countries there may be where the penetration of the Internet is being underestimated.4 51. cable modem and subscribers to other technologies such as fibre Ethernet or wireless.1 7.22 left).5 Malta Bahrain Uruguay Mauritius Chile Argentina St.0 56.0 63. The challenge is to increase the number of developing countries that carry out Internet user surveys.2 18. school or public places such as Internet cafés. China Canada 68.2.9 13. four out of five Internet users can be found in Internet cafés.

0 7. %.387 9’397’426 127’320 0. the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicator meeting recommended that statistics on public Internet access facilities be collected. March 2000. 2002(right) Households with ICT. 2001. Source: ITU adapted from MPHPT (Japan).March 2003. 28 . These can be Internet cafés and public Figure 2. This highlights the importance of measuring access to community ICT facilities. 2002 95 Peru 72 60 49 83% 54 57 51 Argentina 36% 25 13 18 14 United States Venezuela 35% 12 3 Costa Rica 12 6 Mexico Argentina Uruguay Canada Costa Rica 26% Source: ITU adapted from national surveys. the corresponding figure is one in three (Figure 2. data is available. selected Latin American countries.33 This was defined as “the number of facilities providing Internet access to the public.4 305.22 right).21: Broadband indicators Broadband subscribers by technology. March 2003 (left) and per 100 inhabitants. In January 2003. 2001 Telephone PC Internet 66 54 40 21 10 Chile 97 Internet users frequenting Internet cafes.7 2001 2002 2003 3.4 2000 Note: FTTH = Fibre to the home.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2. Japan (right) Broadband subscribers in Japan DSL Service Number of Subscribers Using Internet Connection Services that Utilize the CATV Network FTTH Service Total Broadband subscribers Population (000s) Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants March 2003 7’023’039 2’069’000 Broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants.2 0.22: Not enough ICTs at home Percentage of households with different ICTs. selected America region countries (left) and percentage of Internet users that use Internet cafés. Japan 7. %.

2001 Germany Finland UK France Netherlands Sweden Denmark Belgium Ireland Austria PIAPs per 1'000 inhabitants 4'700 2'380 1'763 1'603 1'050 989 781 601 590 342 Finland Ireland Denmark Sweden Belgium Netherlands Germany Austria UK France 0. whether privately-owned or government-run.06 0.08 0. 29 .25). left). The typical way this indicator is expressed is the percentage of users that access the Internet from Internet cafés.24.03 Source: ITU adapted from EU.04 0.03 0. right). Another way of looking at community access is to measure the number of localities with public ICT Figure 2.”34 The key word is public.24. urban versus rural).11 0.46 0. around ten per cent of all Tunisian users were accessing the Internet from Publinets. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS facilities such as telecentres or libraries. the government Internet agency has statistics on the number of Publinets or government sponsored Internet centres (Figure 2. This is defined as “publicly provided centres providing access to the Internet regardless of their public and/or private provider and whether access is free or not though excluding fully private Internet cafés. It may be useful to disaggregate the indicator by the percentage that only uses Internet cafés or alternatively. The European Union (EU) included a public access indicator as part of its eEurope benchmarks.23). the number of Public Internet Access Points (PIAPs). 2001 Total number of PIAPs. where the Internet café is their main location of access. meaning that the facility is available to all during the hours of operation. One limitation with using the number of public Internet facilities per 1’000 inhabitants is that it does not give an indication of how the facilities are distributed (e. Some developing nations publish similar statistics. Member States are supposed to collect this data on an annual basis (Figure 2. The telecommunication regulator in Venezuela has provided data since 2000 on the number of public Internet centres broken down by the type of facility (Figure 2. insofar as the level of pricing is different.g.15 0. 36 In Tunisia.07 0.” 35 The EU also listed three supplementary indicators that members may want to collect: number of public access points (excluding private initiatives) per 1’000 inhabitants.16 0.2. number of free public access points per 1’000 inhabitants and percentage of libraries offering Internet access to the public. It may also be useful to distinguish between privately operated and government run facilities. The common way of capturing this information is as a specific question in an Internet user survey (Figure 2. Another supplementary indicator would be how many people frequent Internet cafés and other public Internet access facilities. total (left) and per 1’000 inhabitants (right). Thus the number of public Internet facilities indicator should be analyzed in connection with household Internet availability.23: Public Internet Access Points in the EU Public Internet Access Points (PIAP).37 In July 2003. Nor is there a basis for a recommended value since this would be a function of how necessary they are (which in turn depends on the underlying level of ICT ownership). Schools should not be included unless the general public can also use the facilities.

government agency d4) Community or voluntary organizations d5) Internet Café d6) Neighbour. 2000-2002 (right) Tunisia Publinet (Public Internet access centres) Status at July 2003 Number Publinet Users 281 (0. India has regularly tracked the number of villages with a telephone and publishes ongoing statistics on the status Figure 2. Venezuela. Here the availability of at least one facility in a locality is what is important rather than the total number of facilities. 0. journalists and handicapped.38 The localities were then mapped back to population to make an estimate of the per cent of the population covered by telephone service. etc. ITU carried out research for the South Asia region to try to determine how many localities had a telephone. town hall.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 2.029 per 1’000 inhabitants) 30’000 (10% of Internet users. Venezuela. This could be broken down by telecentre (providing primarily telephone service) or Internet café (providing primarily Internet access). friend or relative’s house Location of Internet access 2002.25: Location of access Excerpt from Eurostat household survey on ICT usage (left) and percentages of Internet users utilizing public access points and Internet cafés. Tunisia. service.3% of population) DT 2 (US$ 1.24: Public Internet facilities in Tunisia and Venezuela Publinet statistics. multiple choice Spain Ireland Finland UK Sweden Greece Germany EU 15 Belgium Neth. European Union.) Reduction of 25 per cent for students. assistance. Free to set own hours of service but generally 8h00 – 20h00 every day. e-mail. training. July 2003 (left) and number of Internet cafés. Number of Internet cafes 967 718 Price Hours 112 Services 2000 2001 2002 Source: ITU adapted from ATI and CONATEL. 2002 (right) Where have you accessed the Internet in the last 3 months (using a computer or any other means)? (Multiple choice) a) At home b) At place of work (other than home) c) At place of education d) At other places Of which (optional) d1) Public Library d2) Postal Office d3) Public Office. Surfing.41) / hour (Max. France Luxembourg Portugal Denmark Italy Austria Public Access Poin In a cyber café Source: ITU adapted from “General outline for Eurostat’s 2003 household surveys on ICT usage” and Gallup Europe 30 .

For universal service. the indicators should cover: access options for households. (Figure 2. timeliness and relevance are critical.5 Conclusions • While administrative records are available for some ICTs (e. Some countries provide regional breakdowns but do not provide an overall country total. mobile population coverage. ownership and access are quite different concepts. Transparency. % 97. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Figure 2. India 600'000 500'000 400'000 300'000 200'000 100'000 Villages with telephone Thai villages and rural households with electricity and telephones. For example. Thailand. 1990-2003 (left) and Percentage of villages and rural households with electricity and a telephone. • Countries should strive to collect both universal service and access indicators for policy monitoring. right). • Electricity is a major barrier to ICT infrastructure development in a number of developing nations. 2002. ICTs in the home would be the best option. 2. Some surveys refer to households having at least “one basic good” without referring to exactly what those goods are. It is important to choose the most appropriate indicators. they are not sufficient for understanding true access and usage of ICTs.8 With electricity With telephones 20. Few developing countries collect a complete set of ICT data in surveys on a regular basis. subscribers. • Good statistical practice is essential for proper analysis and to enhance international comparison.2. Sometimes dates to which the data pertain are not clear. • Surveys should be disaggregated by socioeconomic characteristics such as location. Surveys are therefore imperative. 2002 (right) Number of villages with a telephone.39 The national statistical office in Thailand also publishes data on the number of villages and rural households with telephone service (Figure 2. India.9 93.26: Localities with access Number of villages with a telephone. Mexico has proposed indicators such as the total number of terminals available. For universal access. telephone. income. gender.g.0 93.41 However at least the minimum indicators described above should be maintained for purposes of international comparability.2).26. left). 31 . Internet and cable television subscribers).40 National authorities may desire to go further in compiling a more detailed set of community access indicators. Another problem is the loose employment of terms: users. minutes of use and population covered by community access centres (Box 2. It would be useful to compile the indicator percentage of homes with electricity when reporting data on ICTs. education and age in order to understand in detail the exact nature of national digital divides. clarity. Source: ITU adapted from BSNL (India) and National Statistics Office of Thailand.26.8 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Villages Rural Households Note: The number of “revenue” villages in India is 607’491. There are many problems with the data available that hinder analysis. community access indicators and other indicators discussed above.

ministries) need to forge links with the national statistical office. Government agencies responsible for ICTs should ensure that the necessary data for monitoring universal service and access is being collected by the national statistical agency. the ITU Workshop on Indicators for Community Access to ICTs proposed several indicators for measuring community access including: the number of localities with public Internet access centres. the nation plans to install some 50’000 digital community centres to enhance ICT access in underserved areas. In many developing nations. This makes measuring access to community ICT facilities particularly important. Box Figure 2. In October 2003. school or in public places such as Internet cafés. • Government ICT agencies (e. Mexico is keen to enhance nationwide access to ICTs.10'000.g. and the number of users that use public Internet access centres.50'000. work. Potential Internet users are all those aged six and over who can read and write.2: DCCs in Mexico Population to be reached by digital community centres (DCC).1). It has carried out an analysis of the potential population that will have access. administrative records typically collected by government ICT offices are generally insufficient for accurately gauging levels of access.>500'000 9'999 49'999 499'999 Note: The number of DCCs required is calculated by assumptions about the average number of users served based on hours of operation and frequency of use. For the immediate future. relations between the two are often nonexistent. As has been shown. This is unfortunate since the national statistical agency could have data useful for policy analysis and monitoring. the methodology can serve as a reference for other nations (Box Figure 2. which show that. Internet cafés are a primary location of Internet access. the ITU membership passed a Resolution calling on ITU to develop community access indicators. ministries) need to forge links with the national statistical office. for many of their populations. by locality size. • Government agencies should also use the data to produce reports highlighting the level of 32 . telecom regulators. In many developing nations.g. Source: ITU adapted from COFETEL (Mexico). telecom regulators.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Box 2. Government agencies responsible for ICT should ensure that the necessary data for monitoring universal ICT service and access is being collected by the national statistical agency.2: Community access indicators The majority of households in developing nations do not have newer information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as computers and the Internet. In 2002. This is unfortunate since the national statistical agency could have data useful for policy analysis and monitoring. As a key element of its e-Mexico initiative. • Government ICT agencies (e. relations between the two are often non-existent. This observation is borne out by surveys in developing countries. Mexico 25 Millions 16'000 Potential Internet users 20 15 10 5 0 1-99 Current Internet users Number of DCCs (right scale) Rural Urban 14'000 12'000 10'000 8'000 6'000 4'000 2'000 0 100-499 5009'999 1'0002'499 2'500. the citizens of most developing nations will most likely gain access to ICTs through relatives or friends.

• There is a continuing requirement for technical assistance in establishing systems for collecting. where the Undersecretary of Communications has produced detailed reports based on data collected by the national statistical agency. 33 . reporting and analysing ICT indicators. For example national statistical agencies in Hong Kong. The latter should also publish the detailed data and make it available. measuring progress and identifying digital divides. Very few developing nations do this.2. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS universal access and service. One exception is Chile. China and the Republic of Korea produce detailed publications on computer and Internet use in their economies.

1 Iceland 33.1 (Age 12+.6 Taiwan.9 (Fixed. This should not be confused with the percentage of the land area covered by a mobile cellular signal or the percentage of the population that subscribers to mobile cellular service. work). Mauritius) 51. Note that this measures the theoretically ability to use mobile cellular service if one has a handset and subscription. home. A breakdown by the type of access (e. Taiwan. The percentage of households that have a telephone.g. The percentage of population that use a personal computer at any location (e.2 Bahrain Percentage of population covered by mobile cellular Universal access Regulator 100 many 100 several Percentage of population with access to a telephone Universal access Regulator / NSO 100 many 100 several Percentage of population that use a personal computer Percentage of population that use the Internet Universal access NSO Not available Not available Universal access The percentage of population that use the Internet. NSO 81. broadband) would be useful. For the percentage of households with a mobile phone. Slovenia) 34 .* NSO High value Developed** Most 100 High value Developing** 99 Mauritius The percentage of households with a radio receiver. Germany) 97.5 (Any. frequency of use. The age. school. This should include radios built-in to other devices such as stereo systems or alarm clocks as well as mobile phones and automobiles. The percentage of households that have a personal computer used in the home. dial-up. Chile) Households with a personal computer Households with Internet access Universal service NSO 73. China 96.4 Bahrain Universal service The percentage of households that Internet access available in the home.4 Iceland 18. Finland) 76.g. A second would be through a survey that asks people if the have access to a telephone. Resp. The percentage of the population that is covered by a mobile cellular signal.China) 92. There are various ways of measuring this. The percentage of households with a television receiver. A third would be by determining the number of localities with telephone service and corresponding populations.1: The most important indicators for measuring access to ICT Indicator Households with electricity Households with a radio Policy implication Universal service Universal service Definition The percentage of households with electricity.0 (Mobile. Iceland) 37.3 (Any and fixed.0 (Age 15+.9 Brazil Households with a television Universal service NSO 99. it would be useful to know if it is Internet-enabled. only a fixed subscription and only a mobile subscription. gender and access device should be specified.0 (Mobile.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 2. NSO 99 USA 87. One would be to use the percentage of the population covered by a mobile cellular signal. This should be broken down by households with both a fixed and mobile subscription. This should include both colour and black and white. NSO 62.8 Bahrain Households with a telephone Universal service NSO 98.

it should be the regulator. This could either be derived from surveys or through administrative records (i. Regulator Not available Not available Universal access The percentage of the population that have theoretical access to the Internet whether they use it or not. it should be the National Statistical Office (NSO). Theoretical access would imply that they either have access in the home or at work. In the case of administrative records. towns. number of localities with Internet service). Source: ITU. Resp. school or a public facility.g.2.1: The most important indicators for measuring access to ICT (cont’d) Indicator Number of localities with public telephone service Number of localities with public Internet service Percentage of population with access to the Internet Policy implication Universal access Definition The number of localities (e.* Regulator High value Developed** Not available High value Developing** 100 Maldives Universal access The number of localities (e. NSO / Regulator Not available Not available * Shows who should be responsible for compiling the data. villages) that have telephone service.g. villages) that have public Internet service. towns.e. Note: 35 . In the case of surveys. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Annex Table 2. ** Among economies that publish this data.

0 49.9 96.0 85.0 72.9 99.0 21.7 87. radio & telephones from 2001.2 71.9 5.1 1.0 84.8 35.5 92.1 26.0 37.3 96.4 INE C&SD Statistics Iceland Census of India 96.2 48.3 46.0 57.8 76.3 24.7 16.6 71.2 24.6 9.0 55.1 65.4 51.0 84.8 84.1 46.0 3.0 66.9 18.9 74.6 99.0 16.6 National Statistics Office Central Statistics Office TV.0 18.4 48.1 31.1 64.4 33.0 36.4 45. Internet is from 2001 Mexico Morocco Mozambique New Zealand Paraguay Peru 2002 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 89.5 57.9 Department of Statistics Ministry of Planning and Development 31.5 93.2 INEGI Direction de la Statistique INE 96.1 98.8 74.0 33.5 54.1 72.3 93.8 58.6 22.7 73.0 36 .9 61.7 49.1 52.9 10.9 15.4 6.2 6.6 91.) Luxembourg Malaysia Maldives Malta Mauritius 2001 2002 2001 2001 2003 2001 2000 2002 2002 2001 2000 2000 2002 2002 99.5 96.1 78. China Iceland India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.2 9.3 56.1 42.5 14. Electricity from 2000.8 51.8 27.1 93.8 58.4 21.1 49.6 14.2 69.6 93.2 28.3 32.5 62.0 65.4 Honduras Hong Kong.5 61.4 92.9 80.9 20.7 22.3 28.4 20.7 91.9 90.5 6.7 60.9 5.0 56.5 15.6 51.4 8.8 59.7 62.0 58.3 86.3 92.4 1.4 44.1 73.2 38.9 13.7 45.0 59.0 59.3 Central Statistics Office Central Bureau of Statistics ISTAT MPHPT KNSO STATEC Colour TV (1999) Colour TV 6.2: ICTs in households Percentage of households with different ICTs Country Year Electricity Radio TV Telephone Fixed line Mobile PC Internet Source Note Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Belgium Brazil Canada Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany 2001 2001 2002 2002 2001 2001 2002 2001 2002 2000 2002 2002 2002 2003 2001 89.2 87.9 43.0 30.3 68. Colour TV Colour TV 96.0 INSTAT INDEC AusStats Statistics Austria CSO INS IBGE Statistics Canada SUBTEL INEC Statistical Service Statistics Denmark Statistical Office of Estonia Statistics Finland Federal Statistical Office Colour TV Colour TV (2001/02) Total and fixed telephone refers to 2000.1 36.8 89.8 98.3 47.0 12.0 69.6 6.0 69.4 69.7 0.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 2.8 Statistics New Zealand DGEEC INEI Data for electricity and radio from 2001 24.2 97.1 27.0 13.

8 99.1 13.7 68.0 94.6 36. all others for 2000 Radio.7 14.6 9.2: ICTs in households (cont’d) Percentage of households with different ICTs Country Year Electricity Radio TV Telephone Fixed line Mobile PC Internet Source Note Philippines Portugal Serbia and Montenegro Singapore South Africa Spain St.5 17.9 42.0 NSO INE Statistical Office 85.2 60.0 77. China Tanzania Thailand Tunisia United Kingdom United States Uruguay 2000 2001 2002 2002 2001 2002 2001 2001 2002 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2002 68.5 79.0 56.2 27. 37 .0 99.2 75.6 69.5 45.2 92.0 93.3 58.1 64.4 90.9 1.7 73.6 45.4 97.6 91.2 2.2 24.8 98.2. source: OECD.0 98.0 45.2 51.5 13.8 1. Color TV TV is from 1998 91.0 13.0 58. Lucia Switzerland Taiwan.4 17.8 13.7 31.4 24.9 36.4 72.9 77.6 53.5 8.2 56.6 99.1 86. TV and Telephone from 2000 Localities with > 5’000 inhabitants Mainland Tanzania Internet access for 2000.9 98. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS Annex Table 2.5 88.9 97.4 7.2 32.6 83.0 Statistics Singapore StatSA INE Statistics Department OFS DGBAS NBS NSO INS 93.2 52.6 National Statistics Census Bureau INE Internet for 2002.6 99.6 Source: ITU adapted from sources shown in table.0 50.9 52.4 65.

sometimes referred to as fractional ISDN.html.nielsenmedia. Variations on basic and primary ISDN exist in some countries.. World Telecommunication Development Report: Universal Access. This lack of data may be a problem in the future. (2002. “Lack of access to electrical energy in rural areas deprives communities . The company also produces a wind-up mobile phone charger. 2003. A related statistic. By the same token. Thus 97 per cent of all countries had a mobile cellular network. Statistics South Africa.g. Sharing Innovative Experiences.pdf. accessed December 1. Available from: http://www.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_98/index. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 38 . accessed December 1.statssa. The broadcast industry uses other metrics such as “universe estimates” (e. 2003.itu. However. See “FAQ — About Ratings” at the Nielsen Media Research website: http://www.itu. 2003. T. For more on the statistical implications of mobile telephones surpassing fixed refer to Kelly. accessed November 5. 2003.za. “Recharging batteries — Zimbabwe”. January).net). Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had published the number of radio and television sets in different countries but stopped with its 1999 Statistical Yearbook. Mixed Media in the LDCs. Radio and television stations provide audio and video streaming over the Internet while some mobile phone models have built-in radios. Available from: http://www. Available from: http://www. Wind-up and solar powered radios also exist. For further information see ITU. Important policy-decisions on when to turn-off analogue broadcast channels may be delayed due to lack of reliable data on homes with radios and televisions. Available from: http://www.gov. Available from the Statistics South Africa website at: http://www. It is also worth noting the existence of television sets in many countries prior to the introduction of national service. new technologies can substitute for older ones. This refers to terrestrial broadcasting since “direct-to-home” satellite broadcast signals are widely available. accessed December 1.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 1 There is no shortage of references to universal service/ access being the main goal of telecommunication policy. (2002). Central Statistical Authority (Ethiopia). only 12 were found to not have a cellular network at the end of 2002. For example in Denmark a variant known as Flex-ISDN provides 12 channels per line.com. such as those produced by Freeplay (www. Report on the 1998 Welfare Monitoring Survey. albeit expensive and some countries have restrictions on use. potential television audience). April). especially for emergency services within a country.itu. (1999. Out of 206 countries analyzed. accessed December 1.” United Nations Development Programme. (2003). as countries shift towards digital radio and television broadcasting. M. November). Vol.undp. 2003 and ITU.html.org/experiences/vol8/Zimbabwe.int/ITU-D/ict/WICT02/doc/pdf/doc44_E. Measuring rural development: Baseline statistics for the integrated sustainable rural development strategy. Minges.itu. of … television. accessed December 1. it is important that it not be confused with the percentage of the population covered by a mobile cellular signal when comparing between countries.int/osg/spu/ni/ipdc/index. (1998). Available from: http://tcdc. accessed November 5. Trends in Telecommunication Reform: Promoting Universal Access to ICTs — Practical Tools for Regulators.pdf. 2003. (2003. 8. can be useful.. The United Nations Educational. This is due to the reception of signals from neighbouring countries and the use of satellite antennas or Video Cassette Recorders / Digital Video Disks. 2003. Mobile overtakes Fixed. percentage of the territory of a country covered by a mobile cellular signal.int/publications/docs/trends2003.html..freeplay. which are essential ways of disseminating information on general development concerns.

Multipliers usually range between 3 – 10. accessed December 1. 17 18 According to some researchers.mt. M. T. 2003) and Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE. 2003.pdf. See. Is the Internet mobile? Measurements from Asia-Pacific. 2003. to include questions about telephone availability in its thrice-yearly Current Population Survey.html.html. accessed November 5. November). 25-49 and 50+). it is surprising that a breakdown by type of home telephone is not shown (e.isc. Considering the variety of information available in the reports. European data is broken down into four groupings: 15-24. accessed December 1. 2003. 2003. 2003. Telephone Subscribership in the United States. The Bangladesh country domain name (BD) only started appearing in host counts as from July 1999.pdf.net. 2003. This would indicate whether the relatively large increase in US home telephone ownership since 2000 is due to the popularity of mobile phones or specific universal policies.isc. 2003.hk/censtatd/eng/press/ops/1202/itsurveysummary2002. April). Available from: http://www. (2003. Mercado Informático. Survey on ICT Usage in Households. requests the national statistical agency. PC replacement rates are much lower”.gov.spkrsbr. and Novak. accessed November 5. 25 26 27 39 .com/big_picture/hardware/article/0.. Available from: http://www.pdf. December). accessed November 5. accessed November 5.11)”. accessed November 5. See: Hoffman.org/ds/WWW-9907/dist-byname. (2003).com/wired/archive/2. for instance.00. accessed December 1. Available from: http://www. (2003). at http://www. the Republic of Korea shows data broken down by 6-19. June). 40s and 50 and over. A subscriber is someone who has registered for Internet service with a provider.org/ds. A user is someone who uses the Internet regardless of whether they have paid or not.” Wired. FCC (USA). Another issue is that the term subscriber is often used interchangeably with user. accessed December 1. (1994 . the Bureau of Census.Census.nso. Surveys conducted by some private organizations only measure Internet access from the home.htm. Data is available for the last two decades. Through the late 1990s it was not unusual to see statistical tables showing there were no Internet users in Bangladesh despite the fact that the nation connected to the Internet in October 1996. causing confusion. (2003. the US industry regulator. http://www. D.10. CyberAtlas.if. 20 21 22 23 Another comparability issue for some surveys is the location of use. 2003. Available from: http://www.2. the PC replacement rate in the US is as high as 70 per cent. (1998. fixed or mobile). 18-24. 2003. the data for Hong Kong.itu. 40-54 and 55+.aui.11/hoffman. National Statistical Office (Malta). available on the website of the Census and Statistics Department.fcc.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/2003/Measuring%20mobile%20Internet. 24 For example the United States shows data in five age groups (3-8. MEASURING ACCESS TO ICTS 16 The Federal Communication Commission (FCC). 2003.info.com/biblioteca/htm/resultados.g. “Wanted: Net. China. accessed December 1. Available from: http://www.gov. See: http://www.html.nsrc. Available from: http://www. See “Distribution by top level domain name”.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/subs1102. 9-17.wired. Available from: www. 20s. On the other hand “In more developing regions. Host computers have an Internet Protocol (IP) network address that can be captured by online surveys. 2003).5921_988841. Available from: http://cyberatlas.ripe. “PC Market headed for geographic shift”.org/db/lookup/operation=lookup-report/ID=890202369299:497431318/fromPage=BD.es. Minges. accessed December 1. See “First Ping BD — Bangladesh on line (1996.internet. 25-39. Host count surveys are conducted by the Internet Software Consortium (http://www. This would under-report the number of users where access from other locations is widespread. accessed December 1. 30s. 19 Prince and Cooke.

accessed November 30.ati. November 20). http://www. Propuestas sobre indicadores para medir y cuantificar el acceso comunitario a las TIC. 2003.gob.eu. centros de navegación y cibercafé” on the CONATEL website at: http://www.int/itunews/issue/2002/10/southasia.int/ITU-D/ict/material/Top50_e. (2003). accessed November 5.htm. OSIPTEL. 2003. (2003.pdf.pe/OsiptelDocs/GPR/EL_SECTOR/INTERNET/dt_internet. Available from: http://www.doc.htm. Minges. accessed November 30. “Les centres d’accès publics (Publinets)” on the Agence Tunisienne d’Internet (ATI) website at: http://www.osiptel. World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 40 . May).htm.itu. Paulwell.pdf. EU. September). Only a few operators currently do this. 2003. M. there are normally telephone usage charges that the operator shares with the ISP.th.nso. (2002). 2003. Some countries therefore report all telephone subscribers who have pre-registered for the service as being Internet subscribers whether they use it or not. “Launch of Jamaica Internet Market Study”.th/project/asean-measurement/measurement_report. accessed October 3.html.or. One way of dealing with this situation is for telecommunication operators to count the number of telephone numbers accessing prepaid Internet services. National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (Thailand).int/ITU-D/ict/WICT02/conclusions/index. Available from: http://www.go. (2003.nat. Draft. (2002.conatel. 2003.ve/ns/indicadores/Indicadoresnuevos/ CENTROS%20DE%20ACCESO%20DE%20TELECOMUNICACIONES. Key indicators of the telecommunication/ICT sector.itu. See the “Village Panchayat Telephones(VPT) Monthly Progress Report” on the BSNL website at: http://www.pdf. (2003).gov. P. accessed October 1. Available from: http://www. accessed November 30. see ITU. Diagnostico de la Situación de Internet en el Peru. The meeting noted: “Special emphasis was placed on the development of community access indicators…”.in/vptstatus(monthly). Birth of Broadband. “Centros de acceso de telecomunicaciones. Widespread use of prepaid cards in some countries understates the number of subscribers since there is no conventional contract. Available from: http://www. The ASEAN Workshop on the Measurement of Digital Economy. Available from the National Statistics Office of Thailand website at: http://www. (2000. Available from: http://www. For more on broadband developments. December). List of eEurope Benchmarking indicators.mct. 2003. accessed November 30. prepaid cards are also sold by Internet cafés. Prepaid Internet cards come in various denominations allowing access via telephone numbers indicated on the card until the amount is used up. 2003.bsnl. However. 2003. accessed November 5.html. accessed November 30. accessed October 3.gov. P. “A closer look at South Asia. Final Report.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 28 Free subscriptions are where there is no charge levied directly on customers by the Internet access provider for using the Internet. accessed November 5.itu.itu. ITU. (2003). and Simkhada. Available from: www. Available from: http://www.pdf.int/birthofbroadband.pdf. 2003. http://europa.” ITU News Magazine.int/information_society/eeurope/benchmarking/indicator_list. 2003. (2002. Undersecretary of Communications (Mexico).int/ITU-D/ict/mexico03/doc/pdf/Doc07_S. 2003. accessed November 30.co. 2003. accessed October 3.tn/publinets/index. 2003. January).itu. In some cases.ecommerce.jm/Minister%20launches%20intnet%20study.

A further impact of ICTs in enterprises is that they help extend Internet access to those who have nowhere else to log on from (Figure 3.2 The type of information collected can be classified into four areas: 1. Carrying out business surveys is far from straightforward. 3. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT A lthough household penetration of information and communication technologies (ICT) is a fundamental measure. To date. that investment in ICTs by business contributes to economic growth by making companies more productive (Figure 3.1. Electronic commerce—such as use of Internet for sales and purchases. these surveys have rarely included questions on ICTs. 2. however.1 What to measure? It is becoming increasingly apparent that the availability of ICTs in the business sector has several important economic and social implications. 3. It has been shown.3. this kind of business survey is already common in many countries. This chapter looks at how ICT availability in different sectors can be measured. Model questionnaires have been designed by these organizations in order to enhance international comparability. guidance is needed on developing such techniques. there is a clear need to measure computer and Internet penetration. The standard approach is therefore to survey a representative sample of companies. work covering ICTs in the business sector has to date been carried out predominantly by developed nations and certain intergovernmental organizations whose members represent advanced economies. networkready and able to exploit new trading opportunities such as electronic commerce. with particular focus on business. 4.1. Perceived benefits and barriers related to ICT usage. For many developing nations in particular. Unsurprisingly. it is important that harmonized and specially targeted survey techniques be used. and is typically carried out by national statistical offices on the basis of company registers. ICTS IN BUSINESS. ICTS IN BUSINESS.1 Measuring business access to ICTs 3. shared ICT use through Internet cafés or schools may be the only affordable form of access available. Indeed. 41 . Access—such as whether companies use computers or the Internet. right). Usage—such as what type of connection is used to access the Internet and whether a company has a web page. left). home use is not the only means of access.1 ICTs also make companies more competitive. Use outside the home—at work or school for example—can be a springboard by which people first gain ICT skills and experience. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT 3. One fundamental question facing countries is whether to cover ICT usage in existing business surveys or to create separate ones. for instance. in order to develop meaningful indicators of ICTs in business. In developing countries in particular. education and government.1. The large number of companies existing in most countries means that an exhaustive census of them is usually impractical. As with household access measurements. however. In view of the central importance of ICTs for business. and the associated potential for economic growth.

3. few countries provide a complete picture of business ICT usage. This situation raises a considerable challenge for future analyses of ICT access in the business sector. Just as Internet user surveys are broken down into variables such as age.g. UK Austria 12 10 10 9 9 9 17 20 31 Source: ITU adapted from OECD. 2002 Ireland Belgium Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Czech Rep. These companies are not included in surveys on business use of ICTs (Figure 3.1.1: Importance of ICTs in business Contribution of ICT investment to economic growth.). even where statistics are collected. raw data from surveys are compiled into indicators—such as the percentage of companies with a computer or Internet access—in order to facilitate analysis and comparability. selected economies (left) and percentage of Internet users who only access Internet from work. % Japan Germany US Italy Australia UK France Canada Finland 14 14 13 12 11 20 19 19 35 Percent of Internet users who only access from work. left). micro or small business enterprises are often also missing from country surveys. In every country. Even though ICT usage in SMMEs is generally much lower omitting them from surveys can tend to distort the overall picture. employment in SMMEs is greater than in larger enterprises. Measuring the level of business access to ICTs is a precursor to analysing the use to which ICTs are put. and some countries have also developed similar survey tools. the number of small. Given the fundamental importance of business in raising economic levels and providing ICT access to citizens. services. This can give a misleading impression of the extent of business ICT penetration and highlights the danger of blindly comparing data between countries without carefully reading definitions first. primary-producing industries such as agriculture are omitted.3. SIBIS. Surveys will be carried out in 2003 (and thereafter on an annual basis) by national . percentage. gender and educational attainment. 2002.3 The European Union (EU) has also published indicators on business use of ICTs in its member countries (Figure 3. right).WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. selected economies (right) Contribution of ICT to economic output. meaningful indicators are all the more important in this sector. Take 42 New Zealand for example. 1995-1999.2).3. and the barriers and benefits they bring. Under the methodology usually used. etc. and in many countries. and international comparisons typically only show usage for companies with 10 or more employees. 1995-99. where micro enterprises (less than 5 employees) comprise 85 per cent of all companies. In many surveys. manufacturing.1).4 The EU has identified business indicators as part of its eEurope benchmarking exercise and proposes an e-business index based on a composite of various indicators (see Table 3. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has disseminated results based on its model questionnaire (Figure 3. number of employees) and classification (e. However. primary. statistics on the use of ICTs in business are typically broken down by company size (e. the adoption of electronic commerce.2 Indicators in action Questionnaires and indicators have been designed by a number of organizations.g. Furthermore. medium sized and micro enterprises (SMMEs) far exceeds the number of larger establishments.

3: Businesses with Internet access In selected OECD member countries (left) and in the EU (right). Business indicators by employment size. Data not available.3 92. %.2 91. % New Zealand. Firms Staff Output Source: ITU adapted from Ministry of Economic Development (New Zealand). with almost all companies possessing a computer and close to 90 per cent having Internet access.8 99.3.2: ICTs and company size In New Zealand. statistical institutes based on a questionnaire developed by Eurostat. a core set of reasonably comparable indicators on basic ICT penetration in Figure 3.4 96.6 The region has a high level of technological know-how.9 92.1 95. % Businesses with Internet access.2 65. 2001. As a result of these efforts. right). more sophisticated services are being measured.0 84. Businesses with Internet access by employment size.5 Among countries carrying out ICT research.6 73.9 98. % Finland Austria Sweden Denmark Germany Ireland Belgium Spain Italy Netherlands EU 15 Luxembourg UK Greece France Portugal Japan 91.0 Canada 70.0 84. 2001. 2001 New Zealand More than 5 employees > 50 employees 20-49 employees 6-19 employees 75 89 79 95 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Large Medium Micro Small Large Medium Small Micro < 6 employees. 2001. 2001 Businesses with Internet access. the Nordic countries have been publishing data on business adoption of ICTs since 1999.7 Source: ITU adapted from OECD. enhancing the level of analysis over time (Figure 3.4. ICTS IN BUSINESS. Gallup Europe.4.7 84.3 82. left). As penetration approaches the limit for traditional ICTs such as computers. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Figure 3.5 Australia New Zealand 86.8 96. 43 . Statistics New Zealand. 2001 New Zealand. such as high-speed Internet access and intranets (Figure 3.4 91.4 98.3 89.

the “Tigers” also regularly compile data on use of ICTs in companies (Figure 3.7 Data for some countries in Central and Eastern Europe is also available. C&SD 2002 (Hong Kong China). left).5. right). % 1999 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sweden Denmark Finland 2001 2000 2002 Use of ICT in Nordic enterprises. Taiwan.4: ICT penetration in Nordic companies Proportion of enterprises with at least more than 10 employees Internet penetration in Nordic firms.) and Baltic Information Society Statistics (right chart). 2001. China Singapore Source: ITU adapted from FIND 2002 (Taiwan. Rep. Poland PC Internet Website Percent of businesses with ICTs. % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Computers Internet Website Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden \ Iceland Norway High speed access Intranet EDI Extranet Source: ITU adapted from Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002. NCA 2001 (Korea. Rep. 2001-02 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HK. Poland and Russia (Figure 3. companies is available for most developed nations. 2001 (left) and East Asia. China). 2001 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Estonia Latvia Lith. Lithuania.8 In the Asia region. owing to links with Western European statistical agencies. One result is that the few developing nations that have the data cannot compare themselves with their peers Figure 3.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. Nordic statistical agencies have extended their expertise to cooperate with the Baltic region.5. where data on ICT penetration in companies has been made available for Estonia. 44 . 2001-02 (right) Percent of businesses with ICTs. where the availability of statistics is generally poor. China PC Internet Website Russia Korea. For example. Latvia. IDA 2002 (Singapore).5: Business ICTs in emerging economies In selected economies from Central and Eastern Europe . This is not the situation in most developing nations.

this indicator proved to be an unsatisfactory since not all registered domain names are associated with active websites. particularly with respect to small. Although the data do not allow for international comparability. In East Africa for example. right). all company sizes).com”) in the country. ITU developed a simple questionnaire to obtain data about the use of ICTs in different sectors of the economy and followed this up with field visits.6. companies with annual revenue > US$ 55’000. a survey was carried out among 300 SMEs in Kenya and Tanzania in early 2000 (Figure 3. The results were not encouraging. they do give some indication of possible trends in developing nations. 2000. right). which seem to be a special focus of attention. the Philippines. SME surveys have also been carried out in Costa Rica and in a number of developing Asian nations including Indonesia. Another consequence is that though developing nations are targeted as potentially major beneficiaries of new possibilities offered by electronic trade. limitations with the Latin American data in terms of comparability. However. left). and are left with the frustration of measuring themselves against the high levels already achieved by developed nations.6: Business ICTs in developing nations Percentage of businesses with ICTs. INEI (Peru. 1999. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Figure 3. 5+ employees) and NCB (Mauritius.7. 2001. “. based on the number of domain names registered as commercial (i. 2001 (right) Percent of businesses with ICT. Attempts were made to fall back on surrogate measures.e. The only other developing nation known to have carried out an official survey specifically on business ICT use is Mauritius (Figure 3. Attempting to measure companies with 45 . 2001 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PC Internet Web site Mexico Peru PC Internet Website Source: ITU adapted from Subsecretaría de Economía (Chile. Only five economies—all higher income—were able to provide data on ICT use by enterprises. 10+ employees). percent of businesses with ICT.10 There is also some unofficial data available for other developing countries. completeness and timeliness. however. Sri Lanka and Thailand (Figure 3. In support of this project.7.9 Chile and Mexico have also carried out enterprise-level ICT surveys (Figure 3. This suggests that the statistical divide is strongly economic in its roots. INEGI (Mexico. 1999-2002 (left) and Mauritius.6. left). In country case studies carried out under ITU’s Internet Case Study project. almost nothing is known about the potential of their businesses to exploit such opportunities. There are. 1999-2000 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mauritius.12 ITU’s experience illustrates the difficulty of obtaining enterprise statistics from developing nations. ICT markets in 20 emerging economies have been studied since 2000. ICTS IN BUSINESS.and medium-sized enterprises (SME). Peru is one of the few developing nations where the national statistical office has compiled enterprise-level ICT statistics in an analytical report. and enterprises may be using domain names outside the country. 2002.11 It is interesting to note that measurement priorities in developing nations typically differ from those in developed countries in that the data cover basic ICTs such as telephones and fax machines.3. These included a proxy indicator for the number of companies with a website. selected Latin American economies.

surveys should be conducted on a regular basis and at least annually. There are standard modules. 3. few developing nations regularly compile or readily disseminate such statistics. % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Tanzania No ICT Phone Fax Kenya Computer Thailand PC Internet Philippines Website Source: ITU adapted from ZEF and The Asia Foundation. • Percentage of businesses with Internet access. ICT infrastructure levels are a fundamental prerequisite for enterprises to carry out electronic transactions. As an optimum target. Tunisia. Though a wide variety of indicators can be applied to measure business ICT 46 penetration. There is also a need to make existing surveys more visible. These indicators should also be available broken down by company size and industry classification. with many workers developing ICT skills and obtaining access to the Internet through their workplace. Another possible proxy indicator for enterprises with Internet access is the number of business Internet subscriptions. While most developed nations now compile internationally comparable indicators on the extent of ICT availability in the business sector. which they can then use in other areas. % 00 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - ICTs in East Asian SMEs. They are a precursor to developing a more comprehensive statistical system for measuring electronic transactions that should be the next stage of development. a website before knowing how many have computer and Internet access also jumps ahead of the necessary basic indicators.7: ICTs in SMEs Penetration of ICTs in selected East African (left) and East Asian (right) small and medium sized enterprises ICTs in East African SMEs.1. Use of ICTs raises productivity. The availability of ICTs in business also has a social dimension. helping to boost economic development. a minimum set of indicators should ideally include: • Percentage of businesses with personal computers. 2000. 2002. in 2005. These factors make the compilation of business ICT indicators crucial. so that a comprehensive survey of the level of business ICT adoption can be measured on a global level.3 Conclusions It is becoming widely recognized that business adoption of ICTs is crucial for the evolution towards an inclusive information society.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. developed nations might consider assisting developing nations by providing technical assistance and resources for statistical research. • Percentage of business with a website. With increasingly widespread electronic processing in commerce and business. Ideally. However too few telecommunication regulators collect data to be useful for purposes of international comparison. due to be held in Tunis. There are a number of statistical publications . countries might endeavour to provide at least the three indicators listed above by the next World Summit on the Information Society. In that respect. developed by the OECD and Eurostat that could be adopted by developing nations and incorporated in ongoing business surveys.

but in the absence of a single repository. on ICT use in enterprises.8.2 The data dilemma: disparity and deficit The use of ICTs in educational institutions—including computer courses.2. however. Countries are that smaller enterprises are less likely to use ICTs than larger ones. Home Internet access in developing nations is limited and the average age of populations in developing countries is comparatively young. that enterprises in the construction sector often seem to be using ICTs less and that business services enterprises often appear to use ICTs more than other industries.1: A digital divide in enterprises? If the digital divide in enterprises is understood simply as differences in the prevalence of various ICTs used in separate groups of enterprises. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Box 3. in Sweden 69 per cent of the enterprises with 10 to 19 employees have web homepages while 94 per cent of those enterprises with at least 100 employees have them. these can be difficult to locate. multimedia applications and e-learning—has received a great amount of attention. Some countries do not collect relevant data. ICTS IN BUSINESS.1 Schools as ideal access points The significance of educational institutions for accessing the Internet is underscored by surveys from countries with a high level of academic connectivity. such as Nepal. 19 per cent of Internet users connect at their place of study (Figure 3. This service is already offered in some countries. This applies to all countries. right). For instance. however. One solution would be to create an “Internet library” where all of this information is stored. including links to model questionnaires and other methodological information.14 Despite the large body of research and positive conclusions. international assessments of ICTs in education are not possible because comparable data exist for only a limited number of countries. For instance. A similar pattern can also be seen regarding Internet access. where free ICT access is provided to rural communities using school facilities.2 Measuring ICT access in the educational sector 3. such as school enrolment figures.2. left).13 3. A recognized set of indicators is needed to effectively evaluate and compare the situation worldwide. there are no such global standards for ICTs in the educational sector. the young already make up a disproportionately high share of Internet users in the world. Another benefit of connecting educational institutions is that ICT access can be extended to the wider community outside of school hours. right).2 to this report.9. but reflects the fact that enterprises in different industries and of different sizes need different ICT solutions. With these reservations. An example is provided as Annex Table 3. In the European Union for example. left). There are also differences between industry sectors. have been harmonized and are collected by many countries. as well as official national surveys and special studies.8. The ratio rises even higher in the least developed countries (LDC) where 43 per cent of the population is less than 15 years old (Figure 3. This does not mean that these enterprises are behind the times or marginalized. Not surprisingly. the picture given is one of large discrepancies. these data are available but can be difficult to obtain. The potential impact of ICT access in schools in developing countries is certain to be even greater. ICT use also increases with educational attainment (Figure 3. but the general pattern is not as clear as there is variation between the countries. irrespective of their development status (Figure 3. Another reason to target educational institutions is that students are the easiest population group to get online. Another problem is simply the absence of data on ICTs in education. In a number of cases. One problem is that while certain educational statistics. . the clearest differences between the enterprises inside all Nordic Source: Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002. Generally it can be said.3. that in many enterprises some forms of ICTs are considered unnecessary and are therefore not in use.2. 3. Since access to computers and the Internet are the basic building block for any e-education application—sophisticated ones such as ICT-based distance education as well as 47 3. A number of success stories have been highlighted to illustrate the potential of ICTs for improving educational systems.9. It must be noted. one third of the population is under the age of 15 in developing nations compared to less than a fifth in high-income economies.3 Examples from the developed world The lack of comparable data goes hand in hand with the fact that there are few accepted guidelines on how to measure ICTs in the educational sector.

EU. as % of total. The United States.9: Internet user profiles Internet users by age group.1 World 29.8 OECD 18.8: Youth and ICTs Percentage of Internet users accessing the Internet from an educational facility. Data for Norway refers to 2001. As would be expected. 48 . Not surprisingly. 2002 (right) China 13% 28% 3% 0-24 25-35 Venezuela 7% 20% 36% 37% 18-24 25-34 35-49 Over 50 0-20 21-39 43% 40-49 Over 50 Percentage of Internet users by educational attainment.4 Least Developed Countries 43. 2002 56% 36-50 Over 50 82 70 50 78 61 50 73 58 48 70 50 43 Switzerland 17% 17% 38% 28% 14-19 20-39 40-49 Over 50 Mauritius 7% 16% 34% Sweden Denmark Tertiary Norway Primary Finland Secondary Note: Left chart: The pie charts show the percentage of Internet users in each country by age.2002 (left) and percentage of Internet users by educational attainment groups. WEMF (Switzerland). simple e-mail—they are key indicators to gauge a country’s e-education readiness. 56 per cent of Internet users are age 24 or less. For Sweden. 50 per cent of those with only a primary education use the Internet compared to 82 per cent of those with a tertiary education. The data collected often reflect qualitative as well as quantitative differences in infrastructure and use. the most popular indicators encountered in surveys and reports are the student to computer ratio and the number of schools connected to the Internet. 2002 (left) and population under age 15 as a percentage of total population. for example. per cent. in the European Union. For China. 2001 (right) Percentage of users accessing Internet from educational facility. Cavecom (Venezuela). developed countries have been at the forefront of collecting ICT statistics in the educational domain. Figure 3.3 Source: ITU adopted from Gallup Europe and UNDP. 2001 Belgium UK Portugal Finland France EU average Sweden Germany 17 20 19 19 25 24 24 23 Sub-Saharan Africa 44. selected regions. Source: ITU adapted from NCB (Mauritius).WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. Right chart: The columns show the percentage of Internet users based on educational attainment. Nordic countries. various countries. 2002 Population under age 15. CNNIC (China) (left) and Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002 (right).

3. Another fundamental indicator to measure access to ICTs in education is the ratio of students to computers (Figure 3. 72 per cent of all students had used a PC at school. At that time. 2000 Australia Denmark 45 59 80 65 61 51 41 35 14 14 8 Korea (Rep. left). computers and Internet access in the OECD Student to computer ratio.10: Students.17 In 1999. when an estimated 35 per cent of public (i. This data was collected through surveys covering a total of over 7’000 schools. 2000 (left) and percentage of computers connected to the Internet (right) 2000. it focuses on usage-oriented indicators. by percentiles. It does not. and the definition of the indicators to measure ICTs in education has varied.10. developed and carried out in cooperation with member countries. selected OECD countries Ratio of students to computers. Note: 49 .e. Data is divided into three percentiles: the 25 per cent of schools with the lowest ratio of students to computers.10. though. 90 per cent of all primary and lower secondary schools. however. With regard to connectivity. The OECD’s latest data does not include the student to computer ratio. as many non-member countries do. right). the OECD has published data on the percentage of computers connected to the Internet (Figure 3. Source: ITU adapted from OECD. nor a comparison with other countries that do not use exactly the same definition. is usually available individually for most OECD members from the national statistical agency or ministry of education. the two OECD data sets are not directly comparable because they did not survey the same schools and the definitions changed. however. collect data on the percentage of schools connected to the Internet. 21 The data are disaggregated by primary and secondary schools and also distinguish Figure 3. Also.) United Kingdom Spain Poland Mexico 9 8 7 59 students to a computer in 75% of schools 8 students to a computer in 50% of schools (median) 6 5 4 4 students to a computer in 25% of schools Left chart: The ratio of students to computers refers only to schools where 15 year-olds are educated. the compatibility of the OECD with available data from other countries or regions is limited. but not a comparison over time. This distinction provides an overview of levels of equality in the distribution of computers in schools across countries. As part of its eEurope benchmarking exercise the European Union (EU) has disseminated several indicators for its members. 50 per cent with an average ratio of students to computers. The results allow a comparison between the OECD countries.19 The OECD data is not collected annually.16 Finland started collecting data on the percentage of pupils who had used a computer at school in 1996. 2000 UK Spain Poland Mexico Korea (Rep. 95 per cent of upper secondary schools and all vocational schools in Finland had Internet access.11). This indicator. In brief. and 25 per cent of schools with the highest student-to-computer ratio.20 The two indicators for the 2002 benchmarking were number of Internet computers per 100 pupils and the percentage of schools connected to the Internet (Figure 3. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT started collecting data on the number of schools with Internet access in 1994.18 The data are collected through surveys.) Denmark Australia 4 6 8 9 21 26 12 13 11 23 29 25th 50th 75th Percentage of school computers connected to the Internet. ICTS IN BUSINESS. Instead of access-oriented indicators. The OECD disseminates a number of ICT statistics for the educational sector for its members. State-run) schools were already connected to the Internet. such as the introduction of computer applications in schools.15 The Nordic countries have been publishing data on ICT in education since the mid-1990s. Sweden first collected data on pupils per computer and proportion of schools with Internet access in 1995.

23 While some countries were found to have low Internet access in schools. Source: ITU adapted from Gallup Europe. including the number of schools connected to the Internet from 1995 on (Figure 3. as well as in data availability. the government had no overall strategy for ICTs in education. 3. left).2.22 The project.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 between urban and rural and schools of different sizes. 50 . no primary or secondary schools had access to the Internet in 2001. with its close contacts to schools and overall Figure 3. 2002 Number of computers per 100 students Finland Portugal Italy France Denmark Quartile 1 3 3 4 4 5 9 8 8 8 15 26 Quartile 3 35 13 19 Percentage of ICTs in schools. The available data give some idea of the situation regarding ICTs in the educational sector in the developing world. This is particularly the case in countries where the ministry of education is not the driving force of ICTs in education. and quartile 3 refers to the top 25 per cent of schools with the highest number of PCs by 100 pupils. In Lao PDR.26 For this reason is it important for the ministry. or development agencies) have projects to connect schools and provide computers.24 Singapore. on the other hand.4 Examples from the developing world Despite the overall lack of comparable statistics. By the end of 2002 it had provided all of its schools with broadband Internet access and achieved a two-to-one student-computer ratio. for example. median refers to the 50 per cent of schools with median number of PCs. In Chile for example. collected data on ICTs in education. and while there were plans to provide a computer and Internet access in some secondary schools. Where other organizations (such as other government institutions.12. In Estonia.2). The EU’s eEurope 2005 Action Plan identified the number of pupils per computer with Internet connection (broken down by broadband/ non-broadband) as the official indicator to measure e-learning. ITU’s Internet Case Study project. selected Western European countries.25 The ITU case studies also illustrate some of the problems related to the collection and dissemination of statistics. began connecting schools as early as 1997. secondary and vocational schools. the Enlaces project has used ICTs to implement major reforms in the educational system since the early 1990s. the Tiger Leap National Programme connected all schools to the Internet by 2002 (Box 3. under which e-readiness analyses were carried out for almost 20 emerging economies. it can be difficult to track progress.11: Students with computers and Internet in Western Europe Computers per 100 students (left) and percentage of ICTs in schools (right). 2002 100 80 60 40 20 0 Germany PC 17 Median Ireland E-mail Sweden Website UK LAN Note: Primary. A number of developing countries have made great efforts to use ICTs in schools and to track their progress. which is overseen by the Ministry of Education. intercountry comparisons for developing countries are possible where national surveys have been carried out. non-governmental organizations (NGO). found major differences in school connectivity. Right chart: Quartile 1 refers to the 25 per cent of schools with the lowest number of PCs by 100 pupils. others had implemented projects with considerable impacts on Internet access in the educational sector. One such problem faced by a number of countries is the lack of coordination among different government agencies. The target set by the EU is 15 pupils per online PC by the end of 2003 and by the end of 2005 all schools should have a broadband connection.

to oversee these developments. Investment in ICT education and the promotion of broadband access in schools has helped to spread usage beyond the boundaries of the educational system. 35 per cent of the Estonian population use the Internet. Central Europe and East Asia. the year it launched the Tiger Leap National Programme. as well as for some developing regions. an Internet connection for each school.2: Northern Tiger Shining Bright Estonia’s efforts to make a developmental leap by introducing information and communication technologies (ICT) in the educational sector go as far back as 1996. such as the ratio of one PC per 20 students. right). the project identified a number of specific targets.2. Today. Its name refers to the Asian Tigers and their economic success. and 18 per cent of households have computers. 1997-2002 (left) and distribution of schools by Internet access speed. Seven years after the introduction of Tiger Leap.4 subscribers per 100 inhabitants in 2002) ranks it among the world leaders. The project also tracks the type of Internet access that schools have. By 2002 there were 24 students for every PC (Pentium or above) and more than 63 per cent of all teachers had received ICT training. 2000 (right) Number of students per computer. as well as different definitions used (Box 3. Limitations in comparability result from the different years in which the data was collected. maintain ties with other partners and to gather and make available the results. and the statistical information made available by some national statistical agencies.2.3). EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Box 3. policy role. only Pentium computers counted 32 25 Percentage of Estonian schools by speed of Internet access. they will continue to expect fast access to information.3. which has attracted backing from local governments. 2000 256 kbps 10% 512 kbps 5% 128 kpbs 34% 768 kbps 4% 1 Mbps 2% 2 Mbps or more 8% 28 28 24 64 kbps and less 37% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Source: ITU adapted from Estonian Informatics Center and Tiger Leap Foundation. over 60 percent of all connected schools had at least 128 kbps connections (Box Figure 3. the private sector and international investors. but also 75 per cent of them have a broadband connection. To measure its progress. Estonia 51 From 2000.2: ICTs in Estonian schools Number of students per computer. and basic computer training for all teachers. As these students grow older. has helped to shape Estonia’s progressive reputation. Already by 2000. The project made rapid progress and reduced the number of students per computer from over 50 in 1997 to 28 just one year later (Box Figure 3. left). percentage. and symbolizes Estonia’s desire to use ICTs as a tool to boost the educational system. The programme. such as the Baltic States. ICTS IN BUSINESS. Because of its nature as a central body. Box Figure 3. 38 per cent use computers. Tiger Leap has made great strides towards its goals both quantitatively and qualitatively. These figures place Estonia as the leader in usage of ICTs among upper-middle income countries and its broadband penetration (3. Not only are all schools connected to the Internet. it is possible to compile a relatively comparable set of data for Internet connectivity and the students-to-computers ratio in developed countries. One effort to overcome the data dilemma in the AsiaPacific region has been initiated by the United Nations 51 . the education ministry is the most suitable entity to collect nationwide statistics and to liaise with other ministries on comparable ICT statistics from other sectors. a new generation of ICT-savvy Estonians are reaching university level. Based on the data from OECD and the EU.

Given the limited data that is available in many developing countries though. The indicators number of schools with Internet access and the number of computers per 100 students are also included. left) and a national ratio says little about the way computers are distributed among schools.2.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. Both the EU and the OECD apply this definition. 2002/2003 (right) Percentage of Chilean primary and secondary schools connected to the Internet 78 67 56 46 25 1 4 11 34 Percentage of schools connected to the Internet. selected developing economies. DSL and cable modem. which would not serve the purpose of the indicator. This is especially relevant for developing countries that are just starting to connect their schools. a criterion that helps to identify the quality of access. Finally. the task looks to be a daunting one. data for both indicators should be disaggregated according to different characteristics: 52 . which are closely related to the data discussed in this chapter. ISDN.27 Annex Table 3. The indicators proposed by UNESCO provide a good overview of the type of indicators that more developed nations have started to collect. such as dial-up. a distinction could be made between broadband and non-broadband.12: Connectivity varies Schools connected to the Internet. 3. One point seems particularly important regarding the collection of data on school connectivity: • Many countries collecting data on school connectivity distinguish between different types of connectivity.4 provides an overview of one of the subsets of the indicators. Educational. It prevents the inclusion of computers that are used by administrative staff. Chile. broadband. The type of access will also determine the kind of applications that schools will be able to provide to their students. 2002-03 Primary Secondary 48 26 12 4 Mauritius 5 Mongolia 0 1 34 10 41 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Malaysia Turkey Malawi Source: ITU adapted from Enlaces Chile and government agencies. Two points seem particularly important regarding the student to computer ratio: • The ratio of students to computers can vary considerably (Figure 1. and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). • The number of computers included in this indicator should be limited to computers that are used for educational purposes. which is developing a set of indicators to track the use of ICTs in education in the region. By disaggregating data into three percentiles. it is possible to see whether all schools have more or less the same ratio—indicating an equal distribution—or whether there are major differences. 1995-2002 (left) and primary and secondary schools with Internet access. Scientific. They reflect the aspiration to go beyond connectivity and access and to understand the impact that ICTs are having on the educational system and the way that knowledge is transmitted. To simplify the collection of this data.3. since it can highlight the progress made in some schools.5 Methodological considerations Examples from national and international efforts point to a number of methodological questions that need to be addressed with regard to the collection of ICT statistics in the educational sector.

4 per cent for primary and 69. the existing data suggests that while a limited number of countries are approaching a one-toone ratio. Hong Kong. have done extremely well. especially for the least developed countries (LDCs). and that major achievements can be made where there is sufficient political will and determination. since data do not always refer to identical underlying definitions and frequently refers to different years.2. In Thailand. Some countries. The results only allow limited comparisons. 14 per cent of all schools are connected to the Internet. other developed and developing economies have followed suit.5 provides an overview of ICTs in schools. the data need to be comparable and up to date. For example. In 2001 Slovenia had connected 75 per cent of all schools. • Data should be collected separately for primary and secondary schools. to highlight the countries that are doing exceptionally well (or not) and to draw reliable conclusions. only two years later.28 Since then.29 This suggests that countries also need to disaggregate their data geographically. as well as in student to PC ratios. are connected the Internet. Most developed countries are approaching 100 per cent connectivity. there is one computer for every two students.9 per cent for secondary schools. Annex Table 3. in Malaysia. Luxembourg and Switzerland. to 100 per cent less than two years later. In Singapore. The main conclusion from the existing data is that on a global level there are great disparities in school connectivity. two highly developed nations. Also. for example. where the uneven distribution of Internet services across the country is reflected in the education sector.6 Conclusions Providing schools with ICTs promises a high return on investment. at the end of 2001 only nine out of a total of 12’000 (less than 0. Data in developing countries show similar results. In order to evaluate progress. especially in the Baltic States and among the Asian Tigers. it shows that on average the percentage of PCs connected to the Internet for all EU countries (plus Norway and Iceland) in primary schools is much lower than for secondary schools. This is the case. • The educational system in many nations is marked by a national digital divide that separates urban from rural areas. at 49. which is to be achieved by 2015 at the latest (see discussion in chapter four). Action also needs to be taken given the fact that the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is expected to agree upon concrete goals regarding the ICT connectivity of educational institutions. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Box 3. although performance is uneven. In 2002. only a few schools in the rural areas have connectivity. Kuala Lumpur. The data from the EU show that there are major differences between primary and secondary schools. This suggests that international comparisons can only be made if the numbers are collected and updated regularly. While the report does not give country details.3. Singapore and the Republic of Korea.3: Trends in school connectivity and student-to-computer ratios In March 1999 Canada became the first country in the world to connect all its public schools to the Inernet. the data show variations from over 30 PCs per 100 students (in Denmark. suggests that connectivity is very limited. While all of the schools within the area around the capital. It is not possible to say with certainty how many countries have still to connect the majority their schools to the Internet. a large number of students do not use computers at all. The presence of computers and Internet access raises ICT literacy and skills. This shows that ICTs in education are not irrevocably bound to development status. The table also points to some of the difficulties in comparing national data. similar to most developed countries. since little information is available. Consequently the variations regarding the student–to-computer ratio in advanced economies are greater than for the connectivity indicator. China. better preparing 53 . and others such as Chile. though. Japan moved from 57 per cent connectivity in 2000. Compared to the school connectivity indicator (a school is either connected or not) the indicator measuring student/PC ratio is scaled. Iceland. ITU research in a few LDCs however. in 2002.1 per cent) primary schools and ten out of 424 (about 2. for example.7 computers per 100 students (in Italy. 2002). the results show that the situation changes quickly. ICTS IN BUSINESS. with a majority of their schools connected and low student to PC ratios. Today. all schools were connected to the Internet. but this disguises the fact that the connectivity rate in secondary schools is around 100 per cent but considerably lower in primary schools.4 per cent) secondary schools had access to the Internet. Similar to school connectivity. Another conclusion is that analysing trends is not enough. had no more than 67 and 66 per cent respectively of all schools connected. In Europe alone. the table does not give a complete overview of all existing country data but should be seen as an indication of how countries have started to measure ICTs in education. Estonia. Government initiatives with regard to ICTs in education are often non-existent and selected schools are connected through development projects. 2002) to only 6. In the Asia Pacific region there are more and more computers for students. In Ethiopia for example. including Denmark. 3.

historical comparison is limited and international benchmarking . as a promoter by formulating policies and actions to encourage ICT use by the public. Connecting schools also brings online that part of the population that can quickly learn how to use ICTs. In 2001.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 the future population to participate in the information society. ICT school statistics should be collected annually. are generally expensive. this is particularly important for meaningful international comparisons to be made. the level of ICT-literacy among government personnel.3. Efforts to analyze developments in school access to ICTs are still in an orientation phase. depending in particular on the availability of ICT infrastructure. and standard indicators are not available. For the purpose of this report. with its focus on access to ICTs. as a user where it utilizes ICTs to improve internal processes. downloading forms and obtaining information from government websites are examples of the benefits (Figure 3. broadband or non-broadband). Surveys involve organizational efforts. Online public services such as filing taxes. Schools represent ideal access points because they cover a large part of the population. Data for both indicators should be collected for primary and secondary schools and for rural and urban areas. Unlike households and businesses. Like other education statistics. a growing number of citizens around the world are accessing government websites (Figure 3.3 Measuring government access to ICTS 3. Data should therefore be collected through government ministries of education. Thanks to initiatives that are already under way. such as the number of schools. right). right). countries should also provide information on the connectivity of tertiary institutions. indicators that measure government as user are emphasized. Ministries across the world already collect a number of educational statistics. which is to connect all educational institutions by 2015 at the latest.13. as illustrated by the fact that organizations such as the OECD and the EU are just starting to come to terms with the kind of indicators they need to collect. Since statistics are collected at the school level and then sent to the ministry responsible for education.13. Second. These statistics are widely available. the collection of data through surveys cannot guarantee continuity of information. the United Nations conducted an egovernment survey covering 190 Member States. The two indicators that seem most appropriate are the studentto-computer ratio as well as the percentage of schools connected to the Internet. To measure progress towards the proposed targets of the draft WSIS Plan of Action.14. and are therefore not an option in most developing countries. and often extend to private schools and vocational institutions. 31 For most countries. left).30 The results showed that almost 90 per cent have government websites (Figure 3. The ability to update and provide quality information to the public varies from country to country. The two indicators therefore do not require any detailed surveys but would simply rely on the existing channels of information flow within the educational system. Statistics on the ratio of studentsto-computer should be broken down by percentiles and only consider computers that are actually used by students. as a provider where it makes available online services to the public. left). Furthermore.e. the level of truly interactive service is much lower (Figure 3. 54 3. adding ICT-related questions should be relatively easy. official surveys that collect statistics on ICT availability in government are lacking.32 A few countries have conducted surveys to collect data on ICT usage in government. both within and among countries. It would also be very useful to indicate the type of connectivity that schools have (i. While most countries now have at least one government site. Electronic media such as the Internet can deliver information and services instantaneously and at a low cost. Each of these roles needs specific indicators to gauge government performance. there are no standardized international surveys for measuring ICTs in government. There are three roles that the government plays in the area of ICT adoption. accountability and transparency.1 Why measure? ICT use in government has a major impact on enhancing efficiency. especially in developing countries. Given the rapid changes. and the level of pro-activeness in bringing citizens online. The size and functions of government entities vary widely. First. One reason is that there is no homogeneity among countries in the definition of government units.14. Lastly. An overview of the existing data in developed and particularly in developing countries highlights the need to agree on a limited number of indicators that can reflect global developments and include as many countries as possible. However. students and teachers.

9% Without government website. Another difficulty is determining which entity is responsible for compiling statistics on the use of ICTs in government.1% Interactive Emerging Transactional Seamless The right chart shows the results of an assessment of the 169 (out of 190) Member States with websites.34 Figure 3. 2001 Enhanced 65 55 32 17 0 With government website(s). and the national statistical office in Peru. is hampered by differences in the timing of the surveys and data definitions. % Library book search Job search Change of address Car registration Personal documents Filing income tax Declaration to police 17 28 42 38 35 58 73 Percentage of home Internet users accessing government websites. 2001 Number of UN Member States by website assessment. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Figure 3. ICTS IN BUSINESS. Note: 55 . Transactional = online payments. 88. 2002.13: Better online than in line Preference for online government services in European Union (left) and per cent of home Internet users accessing government websites (right) 2002 Preference for online government services. For example. 33 the Ministry of Finance in Finland. EU.3. but are often unreliable and out of date. and Seamless = full integration of services across administrative boundaries. Emerging = mainly static information.14: Governments online Percentage of UN Member States with government websites (left) and distribution of countries by website assessment (right) 2001 Online profile of UN Member States. sources include the agency responsible for government computerization in the Philippines. Interactive = downloading. more dynamic information. Enhanced = more sites. such as government supply inventories are also used by some countries. Administrative records. 2002 Canada Australia Italy HK. Australia. e-mailing. China Sweden France Japan US UK Netherlands 39 32 25 24 23 23 19 18 11 5 Source: ITU adapted from SIBIS and National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE). Source: ITU adapted from UNPAN. 11.

2 What to measure Data describing ICT use in government can be classified into four areas: • Availability of computers or the Internet. Source: ITU adapted from country reports.15. Although it is the easiest indicator to measure.15: Employees. laptop or notebook). left). 56 .3 1. • Electronic transactions such as use of the Internet to purchase and sell goods and services. Since practically every government agency in the world has at least one computer. China (right) Employees per computer/workstation. there are more computers than employees (Figure 3. China 586 406 424 482 305 369 77 1992 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Note: Data for Japan and for Hong Kong. Another cause of ambiguity relates to the status of the employee. microcomputer. For Slovenia and Estonia. 2002 Philippines Peru Hong Kong. One that does is Peru. the ratio is close to one computer/workstation per employee. The number of computers in government is a common indicator. In Finland. A comparison of countries in terms of employees per computer/workstation shows that availability varies. To avoid ambiguity as to what type of computer should be counted. it is often not reported.2 1. processing and accessing information electronically. China Macao.7 1. China Japan Estonia Slovenia Finland 1. • Usage such as type of Internet connection and whether a website exists.15.1 0. selected economies.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 3. China and Peru refer to 2001. A computer can have more functionality than a workstation. by contrast. China. computers and workstations Employees per computer/workstation. The latter may simply be a terminal to a larger computer with no local processing capability of its own. In some countries. minicomputer.0 Number of workstations per 1000 civil servants.8 3. some countries report the number of workstations. • Access such as whether civil servants use computers or the Internet.6 1. right). Some countries report computers/ workstations per all employees while others report only the ratio among civil servants. 2003 for Philippines and 2002 for the rest of the countries. data are available on the breakdown of computers (e. A computer is a prerequisite for storing. Another indicator of government adoption of ICTs is the availability of an Internet connection. This counts terminals used to enter and retrieve electronic information without differentiating their types. and there the data Figure 3. In the Philippines. mainframe.1 4. Few countries report this statistic. there are four employees to each computer/workstation. Administrative records on the number of computers in government offices might be available.g. Hong Kong. Ideally this should be expressed as the percentage of government entities with Internet access. In Hong Kong. 2002 (left) and number of workstations per 1’000 civil servants. Here there is some ambiguity since some countries report the number of employees per computer while others report employees per workstation. but likewise are often not reported. historical data is available on the number of workstations per 1’000 civil servants allowing an analysis of progress over time (Figure 3. it is more interesting to measure the relative share among employees.3. Hong Kong.

More than half of all computers in the government are concentrated in the executive agencies. almost half of government agencies access the Internet through a dial-up connection. left) to measure this. with users able to send e-mail to government accounts but not elsewhere. Like access to computers. 57 . with only 21 per cent of local government offices having Internet access. in some developing countries. around 60 per cent of all government agencies are connected to the Internet (Figure 3. and that Internet connections can include any of dial-up. Several economies report the percentage of civil servants using a PC (Figure 3. in the Philippines and Peru. access to the Internet is restricted to higher officials or is available only to those with certain duties.16. there are more civil servants using e-mail than the Internet (Figure 3. It is important to know the proportion of civil servants that are computer users since not all civil servants receive proper training in PC use. by type of entity (left) and percentage distribution of computers by type of government entity (right). This difference may be explained by users having intranet rather than Internet access. It also needs to be taken into account that countries differ in terms of technological advancement. broadband and leased lines. which deter governments from extending access to more employees. which account for 62 per cent of all government entities are the least connected. Local governments.16: Digital government divide in Peru Percentage of government agencies with Internet access. ICTS IN BUSINESS. Overall. Furthermore. the reason for this is high Internet access costs. and some may not be able to obtain such training outside the workplace. Meanwhile. The type of Internet connection used in government is a useful indicator of the speed and sophistication of government connectivity. only 68 per cent of all employees were PC users in 2002. The number of hits per month to government Figure 3. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT provide striking evidence of the digital divide among government entities. Peru. China where almost every civil servant has access to a computer. ISDN.3. The extent of computer use can also range from simple data entry. right). right).17. 2001 Peru Autonomous Local Regional Judicial Legislative Executive 81 21 71 100 100 60 94 Distribution of computers by government entity. the definition of a user differs between countries. In Canada. all legislative and judicial offices are connected.17. typing of documents or managing large databases. In Hong Kong. In some nations. left). Peru 2001 Percentage of government agencies with Internet access. in particular computers. while local offices have the lowest share of computers (Figure 3. There are a number of other indicators on government ICT use. Another consideration is that some tasks may not necessarily require use of a computer. While broadband access is already the main type of access for government agencies in European and advanced Asian countries. Peru.16. the Internet and e-mail. 2001 Local 6% Regional 8% Autonomous 15% Judicial 5% Legislative 1% Executive 65% Source: ITU adapted INEI. Some countries report the percentage of civil servants using email. For a government to utilize the full benefits that ICTs can offer. The percentage of civil servants using the Internet is a useful accessibility measure. Peru. it is critical to have a workforce that that is able to use ICTs.

ICT use has been seen to help increase efficiency. China 27 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Hong Kong. it is crucial to provide the breakdown and definition of government offices. the most useful set of basic indicators would include: 58 • Percentage of government offices connected to the Internet.3. accountability and transparency in government processes. Developed nations might consider assisting developing nations by providing resources so that a comprehensive survey of the level of government ICT adoption can be measured on a global level.3 Conclusions Not only can government adoption of ICTs increase ICT usage and skills among its workforce. Hong Kong. and to refine country surveys to achieve internationally comparable data. . For the indicators to be sufficiently meaningful. Countries that have already conducted comprehensive surveys could also assist other countries with regard to the methods and model of questionnaire used. China (left) and percentage of civil servants with Internet access or using e-mail. few developing nations compile statistics on ICT use in government. but it can lead the way in encouraging other sectors and the public at large to make greater use of ICTs. together with the methodologies and results. Although the importance of government ICT indicators is not disputed. While these indicators are important. websites measures the importance of the service that a government agency renders.17: ICT usage among civil servants Percentage of civil servants using computers. China Percentage of civil servants with ICT access. • Percentage of government offices with a website. The amount spent on e-government programmes measures government commitment to achieving an e-ready environment. While there are numerous statistics for measuring government ICT penetration. 2002 e-mail Canada Internet access 82 85 85 79 79 67 67 16 32 29 42 92 68 56 34 38 40 46 Finland Slovenia Estonia Macao.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 3. Surveys to collect these indicators should be conducted on a regular basis. One solution would be to create an information society portal featuring a special government section. as well as the number of entities in each of the categories. links to agencies in each country responsible for government ICT statistics could be listed. selected economies (right) 2002 Percentage of civil servants using computers. Government use of the Internet to purchase or sell goods and services is also important in illustrating the capacity of governments to conduct online business. countries should strive first to collect basic e-government indicators such as access to PCs and the Internet. Under this section. • Percentage of civil servants who use personal computers at their job. • Percentage of civil servants who use the Internet at their job. Hong Kong. government adoption of ICTs is one of the fundamentals for countries to fully integrate themselves in the future information society. Results of surveys on ICT use in government should also be made easily available. In this respect. China Source: ITU adapted from country reports. 3. enhancing good governance.

they should be disaggregated between broadband and nonbroadband connections. Where data are available. and staff to search information. Since statistics are collected at the local level and then sent to the ministry. as this makes a great difference to the kind of telemedicine applications that can be carried out. For instance. Ministries of health across the world already collect a variety of statistics such as the number of patients. where simple. the Internet allows doctors to research online.4: ICT in the health sector Although information and communication technologies (ICTs) are impacting the health sector in developing countries. the main effect is limited to basic applications and administrative use. 59 . EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Box 3. and the computerization of patient information enhances treatment. it should be possible to include data on ICT availability. More sophisticated ICT health applications such as telemedicine remain largely limited to developed countries. In many nations. The ability to bridge the physical distance between patients in remote areas and medical specialists has been very limited in developing countries. An indicator to measure progress would therefore be “the percentage of health institutions connected to the Internet”. Using the term “health institutions” rather than “hospitals” makes a great difference since many developing countries have few hospitals (sometimes just one or two. An important prerequisite for most telemedicine applications is access to the Internet. e-mail improves communication between health care staff. Access to the Internet allows doctors to obtain consultative information. While many countries are able to provide data on hospital connectivity this information is therefore only of limited value. they are generally inaccessible for the majority of the population where health care tends to be provided through smaller clinics. low-cost technology works best. hospital beds and health professionals. ICTS IN BUSINESS. in the Capital and perhaps one other major city).3. Therefore indicators on the percentage of health staff using computers and using the Internet would be useful.

obtaining forms. Percentage of enterprises having a broadband connection to the Internet a6. Percentage of enterprises with Internet access using the internet for banking and financial services b6. Percentage enterprises whose IT systems are linked automatically to IT systems of suppliers or customers outside their enterprise group b5.1: eEurope indicators Indicators to monitor progress of European Union eEurope 2005 Action Plan Business H.2 Percentage of individuals using the Internet for interacting with public authorities broken down by purpose (purposes: obtaining information.4 No. Percentage of enterprises that have purchased products / services’ via the internet. Components of Index: Adoption of ICTs by business a1. Education E.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 3.). returning filled in forms) Additional supplementary indicators to be the subject of pilot studies with a view to examination of their feasibility at the midterm review or earlier if possible: D.1 e-business index (composite indicator) Definition: A mathematical function (to be defined in 2003) combining a number of key internal and external business processes. Percentage of enterprises with a LAN and using an Intranet or Extranet Use of ICTs by business b1. returning filled in forms) D. of basic public services fully available online Definition: 20 basic services as approved by the Internal Market/Consumers/Tourism Council of 12 March 2001 Supplementary statistical indicators: D. university etc. other courses related specifically to employment opportunities E.6 Percentage of public authorities using open source software 60 . EDI or any other computer mediated network where these are >1 per cent of total turnover b3. Percentage of enterprises that have received orders via the internet.5 Public procurement processes that are fully carried out online (electronically integrated) in % (by value) of overall public procurement D. Percentage of enterprises that have a website / home page a3. Percentage of enterprises that use at least two security facilities at the time of the survey a4.2 Percentage of individuals having used the Internet in relation to training and educational purposes – broken down by: normalized educational activities (school. Percentage of enterprises that use Internet a2.1 Number of pupils per computer with Internet connection (broadband/ non-broadband) Definition: Only computers used for teaching purposes to be included Supplementary statistical indicators: E. Percentage of enterprises whose IT systems for managing orders or purchases are linked automatically with other internal IT systems b4. posteducational courses. which enterprises in Member States conduct using integrated digital means.3 Percentage of enterprises using e-learning applications for training and education of employees Government D. EDI or any other computer mediated network where these are >1 per cent of total purchases b2.1 No. obtaining forms.3 Percentage of enterprises using the Internet for interacting with public authorities broken down by purpose (purposes: obtaining information. Percentage of total number of persons employed using computers in their normal work routine (at least once a week) a5. Percentage of enterprises that have sold products to other enterprises via a presence on specialised internet market places Source: ITU adapted from European Commission. of available basic public on-line services with integrated digital back office processes D.

Food processing. Businesses with 10 or more employees. Year PC Internet Website Note C&E Europe & Baltics 64 34 83 80 Note: AF = Asia Foundation. textile and tourism. Businesses with 10 or more employees. 3 cities. EB = Eurobarometer. Businesses with 10 or more employees. NSO NSO OGS OGS OGS NSO OGS OGS 2001 2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 93 79 71 30 88 83 79 68 68 60 16 79 78 62 38 36 24 36 23 5+ employees 10+ employees.37 54 61 67 64 59 66 29 59 9 41 47 30. OGS = Other official government source. Major business cities. ICTS IN BUSINESS. 61 . Businesses with 10 or more employees. 50+. Manufacturing only. 5-300 employees. 10+ employees. All business. America Canada USA Developing Argentina Bahrain Chile Mexico Mauritius Peru SMEs Costa Rica Indonesia Kenya Malaysia Philippines Sri Lanka Tanzania Thailand USA CAATEC AF ZEF NECC AF AF ZEF AF DB 2002 2001 2000 1999 2002 2001 2000 2001 2002 40 67 30 90 90 31 93 85 55 70 83 76 71 26 17 25 43 39 1-100 employees.89 63. Food processing. 5 regions. NECC = National E-Commerce Committee. NSO NSO 2002 2000 76 75 32 All businesses. ES EB ES ES EB ES ES NSO ES ES ES ES ES ES ES 2000/01 2001 2000/01 2000/01 2001 2000/01 2000/01 2003 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 2000/01 92 95 98 96 85 95 86 91 88 89 91 97 92 84 93 91 94 73 88 54 86 72 55 79 71.67 49. Businesses with 10 or more employees.2: ICTs in Business Companies with ( per cent) Source EU Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Other W. 5+ employees. Businesses with 10 or more employees. CAATEC = Comisión Asesora en Alta Tecnología de Costa Rica. textile and tourism. All establishments. Businesses with 10 or more employees. 12 cities. NSO = National Statistical Office. Businesses with 10 or more employees. Businesses with 10 or more employees. Source: ITU adapted from sources shown above. > 5 employees All businesses. BIS = Baltic Information Society. Businesses with 10 or more employees. Excluding micro enterprises and very large firms. selected industries. DB =Dunn & Bradstreet. Businesses with 10 or more employees. All businesses.93 67. Businesses with at least 5 employees. All businesses. Macao. Rep. 5-200 employees. Per cent of enterprises using computers Not stated Not stated Not including NACE 45 and 92. Businesses with 10 or more employees. NIS NIS NSO BIS OGS BIS BIS BIS BIS 2001 2001 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 98 94 94 91 78 84 76 92 81 78 92 70 51 66 75 29 64 55 55 45 39 19 27 54 9 Businesses with 10 or more employees.26 6.3. Businesses with 10 or more employees.04 89. Businesses with 10 or more employees. Small business.85 Businesses with 10 or more employees. China Japan Korea. China N. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Annex Table 3.78 67. ES = Eurostat. China New Zealand Singapore Taiwan. <150 employees. OGS NSO OGS NSO OGS NSO 2002 2001 2002 1999 2001 2000 90 12 44 10 75 64 46 14 1 21 15 4+ employees. Europe Iceland Norway Switzerland Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Advanced Asia-Pacific Australia Hong Kong. NIS = Nordic Information Society. ZEF = Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (Center for Development Research). 15+ All businesses. Businesses with 10 or more employees.

questionnaire Questionnaire Note: * Data is to be disaggregated into formal. ADSL.Scanner .LCD projector B. Schools Questionnaire These should be for educational purposes Ministry of Education Interview. Schools Questionnaire Measure of implementation Ministry of Education. Schools How to Collect Definition Purpose From whom to Collect How to Collect These should be used for educational purposes Context of ICT development Ministry of Education.Digital camera . 62 . Source: UNESCO.Dot Matrix printer .WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 3.UPS Definition Purpose Measure of quality of connectivity From whom to Collect Ministry of Education How to Collect Interview.Scanner .Dot matrix printer . Speed / Bandwidth / Satellite / Wireless Indicators 1.Colour printer . Number of hours per week for ICT-aided instruction Data must be banded 4. * Number of computers connected to the Internet Data must be in bands 2. questionnaire Definition Purpose Measure of connectivity School heads / ICT coordinators of schools School heads / ICT coordinators of schools From whom to Collect Ministry of Education. non-formal. * Hours a month the school uses the Internet 3.Color printer .Multimedia projector . wireless D. narrowband.3: UNESCO: Proposed Set of Indicators for ICTs in Education A. * Number of schools with websites produced by students C. Systems and Hardware Pre-Pentium 1. of schools with electricity computers telephone intranet Internet TV/VCR/VCD/DVD radio 2. *No. Percentage of schools using the following equipment for educational purposes: . *Number of PCs running on the Windows platform Definition Pentium *Number of PCs with pre-Pentium processors Non-Pentium Does your school have the following equipment that you use for educational purposes: . Enabling Environment Indicators 1. primary and secondary education. * Number of computers per 100 students Data must be in bands Open to guesstimates 3. Percentage of schools with broadband. Internet Connectivity Indicators 1. Schools Questionnaire Ministry of Education. Systems and Hardware D.

7 S) 25 All All 66% 100% 53%/ 93% 100%/ 100% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.2 13.2 6.1 31.0:1 26:1 P) 47.5 12.4 8. ICTS IN BUSINESS.2 7. schools B) Schools with Internet access Total/ per cent 93% Note Source EU (+Norway and Iceland) Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Iceland Norway EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB EB A) EB B) OGS EB Year Sample 7007 Primary/ Secondary 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 8 9 3.2 12.7 14.7 P) 22.3 8.B): Refers to public schools C&E Europe & Baltics Central and Eastern Europe and Baltics Cyprus Czech Republic MOF OECD 2002 2000 15:1 P) 6.9 6. A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.6%/ 95.6 7.7 8.6 500 512 467 499 519 478 500 499 505 45 500 500 500 500 483 228 503 94% 93% 100% 99% 94% 99% 59% 99% 88% 67% 92% 92% 94% 99% 99% 100% 100%/ 100% 100%/ 100% A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio A): Median student/PC ratio Other Western Europe Switzerland Liechtenstein NSO SV 2002 2003 13 P) 4.5 10.5 4.2 11.0 12.5 15.5 23.3 14.6 S) 20 3.4 :1 S) 4:1 7.7 All See Note Data refers to public schools only.4 6.9 7. 98% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.9 12.4% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.3 S)12.2 16.0 7. 4. A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.3 13.2 12.3 11. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Annex Table 3.1 :1 S) 5.9 12. Estonia Hungary TLF OECD 2002 2000 24:1 9:1 4.1 All See Note Latvia OECD 2000 5:1 20 See Note Lithuania Poland STD OECD 2002 2000 P) 2.4: ICTs in schools A) PCs per students Students/ PC ratio PCs for 100 students No.2 6.1 7.7 6.3.8 See Note See Note 63 .6 14.0 9.

USA NCES 2001 5.7 S)8. Rep. A) OECD A) 2000 B)ITU CS B) 2002 EYAD 2002/ 2003 9:1 11.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 3.7 See Note 100% 100%/ 100% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled. 100%/ 100% 61%/88% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.2% <1%/ 2. 16%/44% Slovakia Slovenia Turkey OGS RIS MoE 2002 2000/ 2001 2002 27:1 3. there are also schools administering both (primary and secondary) schools. A): Refers to computers with Internet access only.4:1 19 All 99% Developing Brazil OECD 2000 26 3. 100% 57% 100%/ 100% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled. School-net Thailand All All N. In these 96% of all schools are connected to the Internet and the students to PC ratio is 19:1.2 All All All 64 .3 S)25 50 All All 10%/ 34% 97%/100% 68% of all primary and 92% of secondary schools had broadband access 100% 14% 100%/ 100% Singapore Thailand MoE ITU CS. with some variations 16. Besides the Primary and Secondary schools.3 All Malaysia New Zealand ITU CS MoE 2000 A)2003 B)2002 2002 2003 P)7:1 S)4:1 2:1 P)14. China P)21:1 S)12:1 P)4.0 S:3. schools B) Schools with Internet access Total/ per cent Note Source Russia OECD Year 2000 Sample See Note Primary/ Secondary A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.3 All See Note Korea. America Canada OECD 2000 6:1 16.7 All All All 75% A): Methodology for PCs based on EB (EU).1 See Note 100% Macao. Covers public schools. China ITU CS Japan OECD/ MoE 2002 2000 12:1 8. 0/33% 71%/ 76% 0.9 See Note A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.4% Cape Verde Chile Ethiopia ITU CS Mineduc MoE ITU CS 2002 2003 2001 P:51:1 S:31:1 P:2.4%/41% Advanced Asia-Pacific Australia OECD 2000 5:1 20 See Note A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled.4: ICTs in Schools (cont’d) A) PCs per students Students/ PC ratio 10:1 PCs for 100 students 10 No.7% 12. Hong Kong.

4% 4. Comparability is limited given that data refer to different years and the rapid change. Also. as well as the different players involved.3%/ 25. China MICT = Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. NIS = Nordic Information Society NSO = National Statistical Office OECD = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OGS = Other official government source RIS = Research on Internet for Slovenia STD = Statistics Lithuania SV = Schulamt Vaduz. and ADSL connectivity has reached over 600 of Jordan's 3000 public schools Malawi Mauritius Mexico OGS ITU CS OECD 2002 2002 2000 N/A 23:1 4.4 All All See Note 0. ATI: Agence Tunisienne d’Internet EB = Eurobarometer ES= Eurostat EYAD = Education and Youth Affairs Department. many developed countries have more recent data but EB or OECD data was chosen for comparability. 40% for Preparatory. by quartile. Estonia Source: ITU adapted from sources shown above. A) Data refers to the Indicator PCs per students B) Data refers to the Indicator Schools with Internet access P) = Primary schools S) = Secondary schools OECD data on PC/student ratio is calculated in the following way: Total number of students enrolled in the school divided by the total number of computers for the school in which 15-year-olds are enrolled. weighted by student enrolment. Kitts Tunisia 2002 2003 All All N/A This table does not provide a perfect picture of the situation of ICT in schools today. and 100% for Secondary schools St. The table should therefore be seen as a rough overview of what kind of data countries collect. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT Annex Table 3. Mongolia Philippines OGS Project TAO CARES OGS ATI 2002 2001 All 45'811 19% 2% 5. Jordan MoE = Ministry of Education NCES = US National Center for Educational Statistics. It also points to the methodological difficulties connected to collecting data. There are probably additional countries that collect information on the number of PCs per students and the number of schools with Internet access but for which the data is not readily available.3% A): Student/PC ratio refers to median and only to schools where 15-year olds are enrolled. Macao.05% 18. type of institution and location of school. schools B) Schools with Internet access Total/ per cent Note Source Jordan MICT Year 2003 Sample All Primary/ Secondary N/A/100% Currently all secondary schools in Jordan have fully equipped computer labs.4: ICTs in Schools (cont’d) A) PCs per students Students/ PC ratio PCs for 100 students No. Note: 65 .2%/ 48.7% 0%/0. Liechtenstein TLF = Tiger Leap Foundation.5% Private and public elementary and secondary schools 100%/ N/A 10%/100% B): Connectivity is 10% for Primary.3. ICTS IN BUSINESS.

5: ICTs in Government Source Canada Estonia Finland Hong Kong. China NSO OGS MF ITSD NSO OGS OGS NSO NCC OGS OGS OGS OGS Year 1999 2002 2000 2003 2002 2002 2002 2001 2003 2002 2002 2002 2001 Per cent of government offices connected to the Internet Percentage of employees using ICTs at their job PC Internet 94 82.5 85.0 5.2 Central government 60 79 13. China Malawi Peru Philippines Romania San Marino Slovenia Taiwan.4 As % of all offices that responded to the survey National government agencies 21.2 100. ITSD = Information Technology Services Department.3 85.0 68 41.5 Note Federal and provincial employees 76 70 16. China Japan Macao. Source: ITU adapted from sources shown above. OGS = Other official government source. MF = Ministry of Finance.7 79.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Annex Table 3. 66 . NCC = National Computer Center.0 Note: INEI = Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Informática.2 67.

3 to 0.int/comm/eurostat. See OECD. Flash Eurobarometre 116. see ICT Success Stories on digital education. there is no official data on the availability of ICT in companies. See data available under “Measuring the Information Economy: Access to and use of Information Technologies” available from the OECD website at: <www. During the second half of the 1990s. (July 2003). For example.asp?ID=352.org/olis/2001doc.html. F. A noticeable exception is the United States. 2003.html. et.html. December). accessed December 1.it/2002/en/mostra. accessed December 1.scb. 2003. accessed December 1. (2002). Available from: http://www.htm.asiafoundation. However. 2003.2 and 0.html>.eosgallupeurope. this contribution rose to 0. Available from: http://ncb. except for the manufacturing sector. Sri Lanka.htm.htm. Gallup Europe. accessed December 1.oecd. 2003.2340. A private organization carries out surveys on the level of ICTs in SMEs. ICTS IN BUSINESS. 2003. Indicators for the Information Society in the Baltic Region. Available from: http://www.org/ICT/surveys.pdf.9 percentage points per year”. E-Commerce. Available from: http://www. A copy of the questionnaire is available from: http://www.fi/tk/yr/tietoyhteiskunta/index_en.5 percentage points per year to economic growth. For an overview of the project see the “Global Junior Challenge” website at http://www. (2002).html. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Informática (Peru).com/webreports/Report%20FL%20136%20E-commerce%202. 2003. The Statistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT) carried out a pilot study based on a questionnaire (see Annex 2). accessed December 1. accessed December 1. ICT Usage Survey 2001. (2001.inei. S.ssb. accessed December 1. For example see The Asia Foundation. (2002. Available from: http://www.olis.oecd. Indicadores de Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación en las Empresas. Nordic Information Society Statistics 2002.de/publications. accessed December 1. at: www. 2003.org/document/62/0. October). See National Computer Board (Mauritius).stat.gjc. Available from: http://www. depending on the country.00. The US Bureau of Census publishes regular data on the value of e-commerce transactions.en_2649_34449_2766782_1_1_1_1. 2003). The Role of ICT for the Performance of SMEs in East Africa.voorburg. (2001. Matambalya.doc. 2003. 2003. accessed December 1. and Thailand” available from: http://www.org/dataoecd/34/15/2771167.eu. accessed December 1.itu. Northern eDimension Action Plan. ICT contributed between 0. accessed December 1. (2001. 2003.no/english/magazine/art-2003-07-14-01-en.mu/ncb/survey/ict2001.3. Available from: http://www. February). accessed December 1. accessed December 1. For example see the description of the “OECD Model Questionnaire on ICT Usage and Electronic Commerce in Enterprises” in OECD. and Wolf.nsf/linkto/dsti-doc(2001)7. 2003. Measuring the Information Economy 2002. (2002).intnet. 2003. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT 1 A nine-country survey found that: “Over the past two decades. November). “Regional Survey of SMEs’ use of eCommerce in Indonesia.se/Model%20survey%20ICT%20annex%201. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 67 . the Philippines. 2003.pe/biblioinei. Al.gob.pdf. ICT Investment and Economic Growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a Unique Case? A Comparative Study of Nine OECD Countries.int/osg/spu/wsis-themes/ict_stories/DigitalEducation.zef. Available from: http://www. Statistics Denmark. accessed December 1. Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities (see: http://europa.oecd.

Facts about Information and Communication Technology in Sweden 2003. accessed December 1.stat.en_2649_37455_13634484_1_1_1_37455. Nurmela J.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/thailand/index. 2003. Mobile Phones and Computer as Parts of Everyday Life in Finland. European Commission.se/english_fr. Gallup Europe. (2003).int/ict/cs.gov/pubs2002/internet. Benchmarking E-government: Assessing the United Nations Member States. May).int/information_society/eeurope/2002/news_library/documents/index_en. eEurope 2005: Benchmarking Indicators. (1997). (2003). This kind of disaggregation would be useful for developing countries since it could highlight progress made in some schools instead of using only averages that often give a generally negative picture. accessed December 1. OECD.S. Ollila. ITU. Head Teachers & Internet. 2003.redenlaces.eosgallupeurope. accessed December 1. 2003. 2003. See the “ITU Internet Case Study Project” available from: http://www.schoolnet.edu. 2003. Internet on the Mekong: Lao PDR Case Study. 2003. (2002).asp. http://europa. November). See the Enlaces website at www.html.itu. Available from: http://www1. 2003. (2002).htm.eu. P. for example. the Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association and other organizations have been the key drivers to connect secondary schools to the Internet.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 15 “Internet Access in U. accessed December 1.htm.. accessed December 1. (2000. January).itu. 2003. accessed December 1. 2003.html. 2003.sika-institute.ed.. The OECD and others disaggregate the student to computer ratio into three percentiles to highlight the distribution of computers among schools.2340. Teaching and Teaching Support Staff. Learning Process and Outcomes. In Indonesia.htm. See the “Proposed Set of Indicators for ICT in Education” available from: www. accessed December 1. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics website at http://nces.htm.com/webreports/internet. Available from: www. In Cape Verde. 2003. Available from: http://www. a government agency other than the Ministry of Education took over the responsibility of ICT in education. (2002. Bits and Bahts: Thailand Internet Case Study.html. (2002. Available from: http://www.oecd. accessed December 1.itu.. 2003. Technological infrastructure and access. Available from: www.S. Indicators are divided into the five groups: Policy. See the Industry Canada SchoolNet website at http://www. (2002). accessed December 1.htm.moe.html. Ministry of Education (Singapore). ICT Curriculum. The Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis. 2003. accessed December 1. accessed December 1.sg/iteducation/masterplan/summary. Heinonen R. accessed December 1. V.cl/paginas/index. Education at a Glance 2003. UN Division for Public Economics and Public Administration. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994 – 2001” available from the U.ca/home/e/whatis.fi/tk/el/stty2r1e. Available from: http://www. accessed December 1.html.org/bangkok/education/ict/unesco_projects/JFIT/perf_indicators/proposedind. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 68 . Available from http://www.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/laos/index. and Virtanen. ITU. Masterplan for IT in Education.unesco.org/document/52/0.00.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Informática (Peru). 2003 ICT Resources Survey.PDF. 2003.inei. (2003. June). Available from: http://www. ICTS IN BUSINESS.htm. accessed December 1. 2003.pe/biblioinei.3. National Computer Center (Philippines). It is hoped that further efforts on defining indicators will lead to improved and comparable data in the future. Available from: http://www.gob. The OECD Working Party on Indicators for the Information Society (WPIIS) has been working on harmonizing the definition of indicators on measuring ICT usage by governments. accessed December 1.ph/files/ICTResourcesSurveyResult1. EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT 31 Another issue is the classification of government “corporations” such as telecom operators.gov. 32 33 34 69 . October). Encuesta Nacional de Recursos Informaticos y Technologicos de la Administracion Publica.ncc. It is not clear whether corporations should be classified as government or business. (2002.

.

Along with the eight goals. gender. make government services more accessible. This forms part of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that outline specific areas for achieving improvement in people’s lives. because. One way this has been addressed at the global level is through the Millennium Declaration. and therefore integral to. Target 18 of Goal 8 calls upon the Declaration’s adherents to: “In cooperation with the private sector make available the benefits of .2 Target 18: Information and communications The Millennium Declaration acknowledges that ICTs are an important tool to achieve its overall goals. adopted by 189 Member States of the United Nations at its fiftyfifth General Assembly in September 2000. In light of the fact that the goal states: “…benefits of new technologies”. the indicators are targeted around ICTs such as mobile phones. The indicators are infrastructure-based since networks and connectivity are prerequisites for making available the benefits of ICTs as specified in the goal. T 4. improve the delivery of education and health care. A trade-off between the ideal indicator and widespread availability had to be considered. education. health and the environment. ITU was charged with providing the indicators to help measure this particular target. However. 71 he turn of a century is often marked by reflection on the past and fresh aspirations for a better future.1 Through the Declaration. and much more. and to reducing poverty. computers and the Internet. In addition. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 4. The Declaration makes a commitment that the number of people who live on less than one dollar a day should be halved by the year 2015. specifically information and communications”. number 18 is the most vague (raising the questions of which ICTs should be made available. ICTs can help alleviate poverty. However. proposes a means of achieving the first seven. there is a certain synergy between the three indicators in that the predominant way of accessing the Internet is via a fixed telephone line using a personal computer. equality and equity at the global level. The next chapter of this report. three indicators were chosen to measure ICT availability in countries: total number of telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants.1).1 The Millennium Declaration new technologies. sets out a composite measure that could be used to track Target 18. Fixed telephone lines can also be included under “new” technologies. they are the main conduits for. The last goal. including poverty reduction. Chapter 5. of all the different targets. Indeed. accessing the Internet. Monitoring is based on 48 indicators formulated to measure the 18 targets. some 147 Heads of State and Government reaffirmed their commitment to working together to uphold the principles of human dignity.4. this report endeavours to highlight the fact that infrastructure is not the only factor that can impact the availability of ICTs. besides being an ICT in their own right. the number of indicators for the MDG targets had to be kept to a manageable amount. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 4. Given these constraints. to whom and by when). personal computers per 100 inhabitants and Internet users per 100 inhabitants. 18 specific targets are set out for achieving the MDGs (Table 4. developing a global partnership for development.

malaria and other diseases Target 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS 18. the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day 1. 48 Indicators Millennium Development Goals. Condom use rate of the contraceptive prevalence rate 19a. Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary level education preferably by 2005 and to all levels of education no later than 2015 9. HIV prevalence among 15-24 year old pregnant women 19. will be able to compete a full course of primary schooling 6. Ratio of girls to boys in primary. Ratio of literate women to men 15-24 year-olds 11. between 1990 and 2015. Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per day 2. Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans aged 10-14 21. secondary and tertiary education 10. Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis 24. 18 Targets. between 1990 and 2015. the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 3: Ensure that. Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under DOTS (internationally-recommended TB control strategy) Target 8: Have halved by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability 72 . Under-five mortality rate 14. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS.1: Eight Goals. Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age 5. indicators Goals and Targets Indicators for monitoring progress Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger Target 1: Halve. the under-5 mortality rate 13. Infant mortality rate 15. Proportion of population in malaria risk areas using effective malaria prevention and treatment measures 23. Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised against measles Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 6: Reduce by three-quarters. by 2015. Share of poorest quintile in national consumption 4. Net enrolment ratio in primary education 7.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 4. the maternal mortality ratio 16. Share of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector 12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 5: Reduce by two-thirds. Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria 22. Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 8. targets. children everywhere. between 1990 and 2015. between 1990 and 2015. Condom use at last high-risk sex 19b. Percentage of population aged 15-24 with comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS 20. Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption Target 2: Halve. boys and girls alike. Poverty gap ratio (incidence x depth of poverty) 3. Maternal mortality ratio 17.

Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis 47. predictable. US$ 44. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area 27. especially information and communications Source: Adapted from the United Nations Statistics Division. 73 . the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Target 11: By 2020. admitted free of duties 39. Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products. Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source. sectorallocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education. textiles and clothing from developing countries 40. Proportion of population using solid fuels 30. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs 29. Proportion of households with access to secure tenure Target 10: Halve. essential drugs in developing countries Target 18: In co-operation with the private sector. Proportion of land area covered by forest 26. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Goals and Targets Indicators for monitoring progress Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources 25. develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth Target 17: In co-operation with pharmaceutical companies. Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative. rule-based. Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and LDCs. to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development Target 12: Develop further an open. as percentage of OECD/ Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors’ gross national income (GNI) 34. safe water and sanitation) 35. Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied 36. make available the benefits of new technologies. each sex and total 46. by 2015. Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population 48. Unemployment rate of 15-24 year-olds. Personal computers in use per 100 population and Internet users per 100 population Target 13: Address the special needs of the least developed countries Includes: tariff and quota free access for least developed countries’ exports. non-discriminatory trading and financial system Includes a commitment to good governance. nutrition. Energy use (kg oil equivalent) per $1 GDP (PPP) 28. Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity Debt Sustainability 42. total and to LDCs. Total number of countries that have reached their Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative) 43. Net ODA. Proportion of total bilateral.4. enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of official bilateral debt. Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as percentage of their GDP 41. provide access to affordable. urban and rural 31. Debt relief as a percentage of exports of goods and services 45. development and poverty reduction – both nationally and internationally Official Development Assistance (ODA) 33. primary health care. ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their GNIs Market Access 38. ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their GNIs 37. Proportion of urban and rural population with access to improved sanitation 32. and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction Target 14: Address the special needs of landlocked countries and small island developing states (through the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly) Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term Target 16: In co-operation with developing countries.

liberalization of mobile telecommunication markets and introduction of prepaid cards.1).5 1.2.1: A decade of ICT progress Total teledensity (main telephone lines and mobile users per 100 inhabitants). in developing regions Total telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants 60 50 40 30 20 10 Caribbean Europe & Central Asia Latin America 14.1 35. total teledensity was at least three times higher in 2002 than it was in 1992.4 27.htm. in 1992 and 2002.6 subscribers per 100 inhabitants to 36.4 2002 1992 18. left). Of all the MDG targets. all of the developing regions of the world have grown their fixed and mobile telephone networks at a faster rate since 1992 than in the entire period before that date.7 0. In a home that has both a mobile phone and a fixed-line. By the end of 2002. For definitions of regions. Globally. Developing countries now account for almost half (49 per cent) of total telephone subscribers in the world. For that reason.7 4.6 44. Mobile phones seem to grow faster in countries where incomes are declining than where they are growing (Box 4. access to telephone networks (fixed and mobile) tripled in the ten-year period 1993-2002 from 11. it indicates the high and often inelastic demand for mobile communications. The possibility of double counting is the major drawback of using total teledensity since a subscriber could have both a fixed and mobile telephone.2 Growth has been particularly strong in Africa (Figure 4. The most rapid growth occurred in the use of mobile phones due to the evolution towards second-generation wireless systems. number 18 is perhaps where the most progress was made during the 1990s.8 7.org/data/countryclass/classgroups.4 (Figure 4. Although this seems counter-intuitive. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. but 74 not necessarily of access.3 4.2. see: www. 4.1 1. whichever is highest.worldbank. total teledensity is the preferred measure in the context of the MDGs. right).0 2.5 East Asia Middle East & North Africa SubSaharan Africa Pacific South Asia Note: Developed countries are excluded. there is more likely to be improved access between household members of different age or gender.2.0 5. . and multiplied by 100. In all cases except in the developing Pacific.1. Effective teledensity is a better measure of total coverage. up from just 19 per cent in 1990. In the exceptional case of East Asia (which includes China).2 52. One way to overcome this is to use effective teledensity which may be defined as either fixed telephone subscribers or cellular mobile telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 4. there were more mobile cellular subscribers than fixed telephone lines in the world. As shown in Figure 4. total teledensity) in 2002 was 24 times higher than in 1992.1 9.3 4.1 Total telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants The total number of telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants (total teledensity) is the sum of fixed lines in operation and cellular mobile subscribers divided by the population of a country. the number of telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants (i.e. the first region where mobile overtook fixed and where almost all countries now have more mobile phones than fixed telephones.

reductions in trade barriers. % Africa Asia Europe World Americas Oceania 30 29 50 47 60 78 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. data are generally estimated derived from average multipliers for the number of users per subscriber.2 Personal computers per 100 inhabitants The second indicator for Target 18 is personal computers per 100 inhabitants. The data for this indicator can be misleading and can be affected by the differences in the frequency of use (i.6 11. In just over a decade since the first World Wide Web (WWW) browsers became available.2. world regions.7 17. cellular mobile and total telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants. per cent (right) Telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants. From only 27 economies that had a direct connection to the Internet in 1990.2.4. However. these data are not widely available for developing nations. Unsurprisingly. the Internet has become an important means of communication for many. world (left) and annual average growth in mobile cellular subscribers.e. 1995-2002.6 1993 1995 1997 1999 Fixed Mobile 2001 Total 18. different surveys carried out in the same country often show conflicting results due to differing sampling sizes and interview techniques. domestic production. 4. obtaining data on PCs is often difficult. Also.3 Internet users per 100 inhabitants The third indicator used to monitor target 18 is the number of Internet users per 100 inhabitants. Falling prices. world 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 11. 1993-2002. last week. the figure grew to almost every country in the world by the end of 2002. Unlike data for telephone subscribers. Data collected from countries are supplemented by sales and import figures. up from just 120 million in 1990. personal digital assistant (PDA) or video game console.g. For economies where Internet user surveys are not available. 1995-02. Internet user data are based on surveys conducted by national statistical agencies or market research associations. last month. re-assembly and evasion. 4. One reason for this increase is that computers are the leading access devices for the Internet. corresponding to some 600 million users. While developing countries accounted for around 20 per cent of computers in the world in the early 1990s. Cross-country comparison of the number of Internet users should be carried out with caution. and greater functionality have driven computer sales.4 Average annual growth rate of mobile subscribers. as in some countries Internet can be accessed using a mobile phone. e-mail only). Few countries compile statistics on the number of computers in their country (although more do compile data on the number of computer users). Convergence has also contributed to methodological ambiguity in counting Internet users. adjusted to take into account the average life of a computer. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Figure 4. For most developed and larger developing nations.0 0. Sales and import figures can also be misleading because of re-shipment. It is estimated that there were 615 million computers in the world at the end of 2002. they now own about 30 per cent.2: Telephone subscribers Main lines.7 36. last year) and the services used (e. developed countries account for the lion’s share of connected users: over half the adult 75 .

the performance of the State does not hinder ICT market growth. Internet is half way between the two.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Box 4. Just over ten per cent of all Internet users. but the private sector involved in acting as Internet service providers (ISP).1: For richer. typically in a more competitive environment. Economies getting richer 2. 34 per cent of users were in developing countries. the two groups performed at about the same level. While developing countries’ share of Internet users is less than their share of telephone subscribers (Figure 4. Given the focus in the Millennium Declaration on alleviating poverty. • For mobile networks. Economies getting poorer # of economies in each group 78 54 Compound annual growth rate in: Fixed lines. The relative performance of the ICT sector can then be compared for the two groups. 1990-2001 1. The developing countries of Asia and the Americas generally fared better. the first group (richer) grew their networks by almost ten per cent per year.3% 2. the decade was good for some. In those economies whose citizens are getting richer. with the relative performance of different ICT sectors reflecting the level of State involvement.7% How can these differences in performance in different parts of the ICT sector be explained? It seems that the role of the State is the critical factor. In those economies whose citizens are getting poorer.8% Internet users. • For Internet services. Groups Based on change in GNI per capita.8% 58. The results are revealing (see the table below): • For fixed-line networks. with the State often involved in providing the dial-up network. though this group also includes the republics of the former Soviet Union. third-generation mobile services have been launched that provide Internet access via mobile networks at speeds higher than a dial-up telephone line. 1997-2001 71. which is more than three times the growth rate achieved by the second group (poorer). there are a growing number of locations around the world providing high-speed wireless Internet access for suitably equipped laptop computers at special locations (so-called “hotspots”). Ultimately. the government is usually closely involved in fixed-line telecommunications (through State-ownership of incumbents and regulation). 1990-2001 9. 76 . it declined in 54 developing economies. and 22 per cent of all Internet subscribers have access to broadband connections. one could infer that mobile phones are likely to be more useful to poor households as there seems to be less price elasticity for mobiles than for fixed lines.8% Mobile users 1995-2001 62. In other words. the Internet has been growing fastest in these nations. In some countries. At the same time. a big jump from the three per cent in 1992. for poorer The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) labelled the 1980s a “lost decade” for development and the 1990s a “decade of despair”. and the average figure disguises a wide variation in performance. In 2002. For historical reasons. and the signs are that this figure is set to grow rapidly. the government may be regarded as failing. To what extent is the general economic performance of a particular economy correlated with its performance in ICTs? One answer to that question is to divide developing countries into two groups: those that grew richer during the period (as measured by gross national income (GNI) per capita). top left). where the private sector usually plays the dominant role.7% 68. The majority of the economies that fared poorly during this period are in subSaharan Africa. It is not so involved in mobile communications. though by not as much as for fixed lines. population is online in most developed countries. the first group (richer) outperformed the second group (poorer). but bad for others. and mobile phones are more readily available to poor people in failing States than fixed-line telephones. it is the ability to communicate that is important. and those that grew poorer. with the second group (poorer) marginally outperforming the first group (richer). Although average income per capita among developing and transition economies grew by three per cent per year during the 1990s.2.

4. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Figure 4.3: How wide the divide?
Distribution of population, fixed and mobile telephone subscribers, personal computers and Internet users and fixed and mobile telephone subscribers, personal computers and Internet users per 100 inhabitants, by economic grouping, 1992 and 2002

1992
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Population Fixed 79% 21%

Developed Developing

2002

Developed Developing

100% 19% 80%
79% 88% 90% 97%

55%

54%

60% 40% 81% 45% 46%

73%

66%

21%

12% Mobile

10% PC

3% Internet users

20% 0%

27% PC

34% Internet

Population Fixed

Mobile

Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants 60 Developed Developing World 39.1 14 times more 10.6 0 2.9 1992 2002

Mobile telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants
100.0 Developed Developing World 1.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 Log scale 30 times more 0.4 52.2 18.7 10.7 5 times more

50.0
10.0

40

5 times more 17.7 9.9

20

0.1 1992 2002

Personal computers per 100 inhabitants 40 Developed Developing World

Internet users per 100 inhabitants
100.0 10.0
11 times more 9.8

36.2

Developed Developing World

33.3 9.8 4.1

8 times more

20 10.9 27 times more 3.1 0.4 1992 3.3 2002

1.0 0.1 0.0 Log scale 41 times more

0.7 0.3

0

0.02 1992 2002

Note: Developed includes Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Developing refers to all other countries. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database.

77

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

Box 4.2: ICT gender statistics
Like other indicators selected for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a breakdown by gender is significant for information and communication technologies (ICTs). It was recognized that the achievement, measurement and analysis of MDGs differ according to the gender of the population. An agreement was made by statisticians and policy analysts to present the MDG indicators disaggregated by gender whenever possible. Unfortunately, the availability of gender-disaggregated statistics for ICT indicators is limited.3 Data for the number of telephone subscribers and computers come from administrative records that do not break down the data by gender. Instead, analysis must rely on survey data. In the case of Internet users, surveys can show the profile of users, for instance by age, gender, frequency of use and educational attainment. Within gender, two indicators are relevant: females using the Internet as a percentage of all Internet users and females using the Internet as a percentage of the female population. In the case of 39 economies where surveys are available with a breakdown by gender, a simple average indicates that 43 per cent of Internet users are female. The highest levels are found In North America and the Nordic nations (Box Figure 4.2, left). The latter group of countries is noteworthy for having the highest level of females online. For those economies where a time-series is available, the trend is towards an increasing proportion of female users over time (Box Figure 4.2, right). The analysis of ICT gender aspects is in its infancy. One serious limitation is the lack of surveys in most developing countries. Only when surveys are in place will it be possible to go beyond the simple analysis of the share of women online to more serious reflection, such as why they are or are not online, the type of applications they use and the impact of ICTs on gender.

Box Figure 4.2: Internet use by gender
Top economies by highest percentage of females among total Internet users, 2002 (left) and percentage of females using the Internet among total Internet users, Spain (right)

Female Internet users, 2002

Females using the Internet in Spain as percent of total users 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Nov.96

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -

As % of females As % of users

Forecast

Canada

Sweden

Finland

Iceland

HK, China

USA

Nov.98

Nov.00

Nov.02

Nov.04

Note:

Data for Canada (2002) refer to age 15 and above; Sweden, Finland and Iceland (2001) age 16 and above; Hong Kong, China age 10 and above; and the United States (2001), age 3 and above. Data for Spain refer to age 14 and above. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database.

4.3

Measuring the impact of ICTs on the Millennium Development Goals

On a general level, there is little doubt that ICTs are generating social, economic, cultural and political changes. However, it is difficult to quantify the impact of ICTs and to separate their influence from those of other factors, such as governance or economic growth. Although there is a growing body of evidence that ICTs have a significant macroeconomic impact 78

(Box 4.3), it is not clear to what extent ICTs have helped to directly reduce major development concerns reflected in the MDGs such as poverty, hunger or sickness. One reason for the lack of evidence is that MDG monitoring only started recently. Although possible impacts of ICTs have been identified by researchers (Table 4.2), the real effects of ICTs on the MDGs may never be fully known, and in any case will only

4. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS become clearer in the long term. Where monitoring and collecting data on the impact of ICTs on the MDGs is concerned though, the role of ICTs as tools for storing, processing and disseminating the statistics used to monitor the targets is indispensable. There are already several international MDG websites and it seems likely that national databases will be developed.4 There are numerous anecdotal accounts about ICTs dramatically improving and even saving lives. While useful for raising awareness, in order to provide a firm basis for evaluation these stories need to be translated into indicators to measure the impact of ICTs within and across countries. This is more difficult than it sounds, because of the lack of quantifiable information. Even where measures can be made, one-off data is not sufficient; in order to be useful, such data needs to be collected over a period of time for an accurate, and comparable measure of impact. Also, while the net effect of ICTs is generally perceived as positive, they can also have negative impacts on health and the environment, and can aggravate existing disparities (Box 4.4). Measurements of these effects are also worth carrying out. This section outlines indicators that could help measure the impact of ICTs on specific MDGs, although of course the range of impacts of ICTs on poverty, health, education and the environment is very wide. As one of the aims of these proposals, it is hoped to stimulate discussions among policy-makers, sector specialists and statistical experts, for example on the feasibility and refinement of these indicators and methods for collecting them.

Box 4.3: ICTs and the Japanese economy
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are an important and growing part of the Japanese economy. Growth in the ICT sector in Japan has risen 9.3 per cent a year from 1995-2001 compared to just 1.2 for the overall economy. Indeed if it had not been for the ICT sector, the Japanese economy would have been in recession in 2001 (Box Figure 4.3, right). The rapid growth of ICTs has seen that sector’s share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rise four percentage points from 8.6 in 1995 to 12.6 in 2001 (Box Figure 4.3, left). The ICT sector employs 3.8 million, 7.1 per cent of the labour force and is now Japan’s third largest employer. It is not only the ICT sector itself which is important but also investment by other industries in telecommunications and computer hardware and software. The Japanese government reckons that the ¥ 25’024 (US$ 206) billion investment in ICTs in 2001, generated some ¥ 40’692 (US$ 335) billion and created 1.5 million jobs. No wonder the Japanese government is keen about ICTs being a core component of its drive to a “New Japan-Inspired IT Society”.5

Box Figure 4.3: Towards the new, Japan-Inspired IT Society
Share of ICT sector in Gross Domestic Product, 1995-2001 (left) and contribution of different sectors to GDP growth, 2001(right), per cent, Japan

Share of ICT sector in Japanese economy, %
11.8 12.6

Contribution to Japanese economic growth, 2001, %
0.83 0.31 0.02 -0.66 -0.24
Electric machinery Construction

8.6

9.3

10.0

10.9

11.2

0.03

-0.06 -0.06

Iron & steel

Wholesale

ICT

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Source: ITU adapted from MPHPT (Japan).

Transportation

Overall

Retail

79

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

Box 4.4: The downside of ICTs
While it is generally agreed that the net effect of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on reducing poverty and hunger, enhancing education and gender equality, and improving health and environmental sustainability is positive, ICTs do have their downsides. In the area of health, for example, there have been numerous allegations over the years about the dangers of excessive use of ICTs. Electromagnetic fields from antennas and mobile phones are alleged to emit radiation that can cause cancer and other illnesses.6 Other studies have shown links between extensive computer use and physical ailments such as poor eyesight due to flickering and reflection on the screen and muscular pain caused by static and poor posture. Excessive movement of the wrist and hand have been said to lead to inflammation of the tendon and carpal tunnel syndrome.7 Another modern-day illness related to increased use of computers and the Internet is infostress related to an overwhelming load of information.8 Excessive use of modern ICTs can even be deadly. In the Republic of Korea, where online game addiction has become a serious problem, a teenager died at his terminal in an Internet café after three days of continuous playing. Also with regard to health, while the Internet has afforded greater public information and autonomy in understanding health matters, not all the information available on the Internet is reliable. The danger is that false or misleading information may be harmful to those seeking to diagnose and treat themselves, or even to treat others.9 Similarly, the growing amount of spam, viruses and hacking incidents are not only bad for the constructive benefits of ICTs and an inconvenience to users, but can also have serious safety consequences. While there has been much talk about e-government, e-education, and e-health, e-waste is perhaps a less-documented, but increasingly distressing area of concern. Rapidly expanding ICT diffusion and more computers brings with it new environmental and related health problems. The number of worldwide PCs in use has doubled, from 288 million units in 1997 to 584 in 2002. With the average life span of a computer constantly shrinking, the number of obsolete PCs is increasing.10 ICT devices such as computers, scanners and screens are made with lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium and other toxins. Only some parts are recyclable and toxic waste can leach into groundwater and pose serious health hazards. In the US state of California alone it is estimated that some 7.4 million Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from televisions and computer monitors became obsolete in 2002.11 This figure is projected to rise to 12 million by 2006. Even under the most optimistic recycling assumptions, some four million CRTs will still be dumped in the garbage by 2006 (Box Figure 4.4, left). Particularly distressing and working against achieving the MDGs is the fact that some e-waste, instead of being recycled, is simply exported from rich to poor nations. According to studies, in 2002 over 50 per cent of the United States’ e-waste was shipped to developing countries where environmental regulations are weak or non-existent.12 On a social level, ICTs can also exacerbate existing inequalities. Access to ICTs remains largely a function of affordability in many countries, with the risk that existing inequalities are reinforced or exacerbated. Indeed, an analysis of the digital divide between, but also within, countries shows that those with higher incomes are the biggest users of the Internet (Box Figure 4.4, right). Telework and ICT-based distance training have been cited as major opportunities for women to work or be educated from home and thus increase gender equality. Sceptics might argue that these online replacements keep women at home, reinforcing existing barriers to equality. Only a clear understanding of these issues can help limit the negative effects of ICTs. Identifying hazards, designing indicators and collecting data must be part of this undertaking.

Box Figure 4.4: ICTs working against the MDGs
Number of obsolete televisions and computer monitors, California (USA), 2002-2006 (left) and Internet users by income group, Switzerland (right)
Obsolete televisions and computer monitors, California (USA), millions
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -

Internet users (%) in Switzerland by monthly income
75 61 41

70
Recycled Thrown away

59 49 36 28 11 14

<4'000 CHF (US$ 2'564) 4'000-8'000 CHF (US$ 2'5645'128) 8'000-10'000 CHF (US$ 5'1286'410) >10'000 CHF (US$ 6'410)

54

15

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2000

2001

2002

Source: ITU adapted from Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

80

4. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Table 4.2: How ICTs can help achieve the Millennium Declaration Goals

Goal/Target 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

Role of ICTs Increase access to market information and reduce transaction costs for poor farmers and traders. Increase efficiency, competitiveness and market access of developing country firms. Enhance ability of developing countries to participate in global economy and to exploit comparative advantage in factor costs (particularly skilled labour). Increase supply of trained teachers through ICT-enhanced and distance training of teachers and networks that link teachers to their colleagues. Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of education ministries and related bodies through strategic application of technologies and ICT-enabled skill development. Broaden availability of quality educational materials/resources through ICTs.

2. Achieve universal primary education Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling

3. Promote gender equality and empower women

Deliver educational and literacy programmes specifically targeted to poor girls and women using appropriate technologies. Influence public opinion on gender equality through information or communication programmes using a range of ICTs.

4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Reduce infant and child mortality rates by twothirds between 1990 and 2015 Reduce maternal mortality rates by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015 Provide access to all who need reproductive health services by 2015 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Implement national strategies for sustainable development by 2005 so as to reverse the loss of environmental resources by 2015 Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water. Have achieved, by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers.

Enhance delivery of basic and in-service training for health workers. Increase monitoring and information-sharing on disease and famine. Increase access of rural caregivers to specialist support and remote diagnosis. Increase access to reproductive health information, including information on AIDS prevention, through locally appropriate content in local languages.

Remote sensing technologies and communications networks permit more effective monitoring, resource management, mitigation of environmental risks. Increase access to/awareness of sustainable development strategies, in areas such as agriculture, sanitation and water management, mining, etc. Greater transparency and monitoring of environmental abuses/ enforcement of environmental regulations. Facilitate knowledge exchange and networking among policymakers, practitioners and advocacy groups.

Source: ITU adapted from Department for International Development (United Kingdom).

81

The indicator: increase in incomes and savings of poor households from the use of ICTs could measure this.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 4. irrigation. helping them get a better price for their products and minimizing costly and time-consuming trips to market. allowing them to increase earnings or save. 1999 Cost of phone and alternatives.9 months prior to when telephones became available (Figure 4. right). One way in which ICTs do have a direct impact on people’s livelihoods — particularly for many developing countries where agriculture is the main source of family income — is by raising crop and livestock yields.58 12 9 9. the contribution of ICT investment to economic growth and the number of workers in the ICT sector. “Village Knowledge Centres”—facilities with ICTs including Internet access—have.15 These benefits also accrue to other poor households.4: Phones. These statistics help to quantify the link between ICT and wealth creation at the level of the national economy in a general way. for example. A number of macroeconomic indicators currently are used to measure the impact of ICTs on creating wealth and employment.9 16. Information in the centres’ agricultural databases have helped save farmers’ crops from pests and increased yields.4. resulting in more money available for necessities such as food. been established at several locations in the Indian state of Pondicherry. thereby reducing both poverty and hunger.14 Another way that ICTs assist agricultural workers is through price information. ICTs improve agricultural practice through access to information on crop selection.3. There are numerous examples of ICTs being used to relay market information to farmers and fishermen.16 The study also suggests that users of Village Pay Phones save up to four times more in terms of opportunity costs (considering the time spent and transport costs if telephones were not available. these indicators fail to measure specific.82 5 years earlier Alternative methods Village Pay Phones Before phones became available After phones became available Note: The left chart shows opportunity costs of alternative methods to phones in terms of time spent and transport. months/year 71. fertilizers and fishing and livestock conditions. Research from a “Village Pay Phone” project in Bangladesh indicates that providers of telephone service managed to eat well 12 months of the year compared to only 9. But while capturing the global picture.4. contributing to maritime safety and increasing fish catches. poverty and hunger in Bangladesh Impact of the Village Pay Phone project in Bangladesh. and halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. taka Number of months in which Bangladesh village pay phone owners eat well. Bangladesh villages.1 ICTs and eradicating extreme poverty and hunger Goal one of the MDGs has the targets of halving the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day. The result is increased incomes. left). Figure 4. These include the contribution of the ICT sector to the economy. 1999. Figure 4. micro-level and people-oriented indications of the role of ICTs in lessening poverty and hunger. 82 . Weather information such as wave heights is also downloaded and disseminated to fishermen. Germany. Source: ITU.13 The use of ICTs by farmers/ fishermen could be an indicator of how use of ICTs improves agricultural practice. adapted from ZEF Bonn.

9 per cent). where a course from Mexico is beamed over satellite and the Internet to some 1’800 teachers throughout the region.23 An indicator that could measure the impact of new technologies for teaching students might be the number of primary school pupils using ICTs for learning. ICTs can also supplement primary school teaching.18 ICT-based distance training can help overcome a lack of primary school teachers by accelerating instruction.17 ICTs can help overcome these shortages in an efficient and economical way for countries facing budgetary limitations. of those.9 per cent).4. thereby helping to overcome shortages. There are a number of examples of primary teacher distanceeducation programmes in developing nations. Radio and television broadcasts could be used to emphasize this with a possible indicator of the number of students enrolled in primary school as a result of radio / television broadcasts. one-third have children under the age of 15. One area of measuring the impact ICTs on promoting gender equality is in ICT-based training.2 ICTs and achieving universal primary education There are a number of barriers to achieving the MDG target of all children receiving primary school education. Several nations have integrated old and new ICTs into primary teacher education programmes. ICT can help overcome these barriers through applications such as distance education. One of the most pervasive is a shortage of facilities and teachers.8 per cent higher. as well as Latin America. In 2002. data show that four fifths of employed women enrolled in distance-education are members of family.26 In some cases.27 The number of females enrolled in ICT-based distance education can help evaluate the impact of ICT on enhancing equality in education. Finally. In Australia. In some countries.3. One indicator to measure this would be the number of primary school teachers trained through ICT-based education. ICTs promote gender equality by providing online opportunities to women that are not always available in the “off-line” world. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 4. This is particularly relevant for tertiary education where students are not only mature enough to participate in ICT-based training but also where other activities such as employment or caring for children prevent them from participating in campus based education. Studies have found that female participation in distance education outnumbers men in many countries.24 ICTs can help overcome this limitation through electronic learning materials. The indicator number of primary school learning materials provided through ICTs Internet could measure this.22 Widespread adoption of ICTbased training could help alleviate the teacher shortage and increase the capacity of countries to enrol more primary school students. As a result of OLA enrolment. Students in a rural primary school in the United States used the Internet to get information about geography with the teacher noting “You would need a couple dozen textbooks to get through all the information they wanted”. a number of countries use radio programmes to broadcast subjects to primary schools while others have gone further integrating ICTs such as CD-ROMs and webbased software into the daily instruction time. there were 6’129 students enrolled in OLA of which 3’485 were females (56.3 . female school enrolment begins to taper off at childbearing age due to pressure to marry and have children. female tertiary school enrolment is 0. often due to financial constraints. ICTs could also be used to emphasize the importance of primary school attendance particularly where there are strong social or cultural barriers to doing so.3. The impact would be far greater in developing nations than in Australia where there are already a large number 83 4. This is higher share than in overall higher education (54. A woman’s traditional role as homemaker and mother can inhibit the ability to attend school.28 Open Learning Australia (OLA) offers higher education through a combination of distance and on-line teaching. 25 The growing trend towards the production of electronic textbooks could alleviate shortages in developing countries through innovative distribution techniques.19 This is particularly relevant for countries with large rural areas where potential teachers have difficulty travelling to formal learning centres. Examples include Nepal where training is delivered over radio to around 9’000 aspiring teachers21 . ICTs and promoting gender equality and empowering women Goal three of the MDGs has the specific target to “eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015”. social customs make it difficult for women to participate in activities that involve mixing with men. For example.20 ICTs can enhance distance education through more rapid and interactive dissemination of learning materials compared to traditional correspondence-based formulas. many countries suffer from a shortage of primary school textbooks that affects learning and causes students to drop out.

It has vastly expanded the amount of information available for health workers and the public. and some of it is in local languages. a telemedicine project found those parents who used the facility reported a 10 per cent higher quality of child care than those who did not. Lucia found that condom imports rose 143 per cent after the programme was aired. This assists health workers who do not have access to the latest reliable information because of the high cost of journals or unreliable delivery. The system is being further expanded to localize 84 4.September 1998 evaluation of an entertainment-education radio soap opera on family planning and HIV prevention in St. In a similar area. ICTs and improving maternal health and combating HIV/AIDS.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 of higher educational institutions with a large share of female enrolment. A broadcast campaign aimed at reducing the incidence of HIV/ AIDS among the young in the Dominican Republic found that a majority of listeners and viewers remembered the advertisements.37 A possible survey-based indicator for measuring the impact of ICTs on preventing disease could be the percentage of population who feel the Internet has helped them adopt a healthy lifestyle. The challenge is to raise this figure and to enhance the training of skilled attendants. The Internet also offers anonymity to those that might be embarrassed about discussing sexually related diseases in person.4 information and create digital videos aimed at enhancing maternal health.29 The percentage of parents using ICT-based health tools could measure the impact of ICTs for enhancing infant health. It has been distributed to some 1’000 health facilities in Ghana including maternal and child centres. 35 A January 1995 . Computer databases can also model the impact of the existing situation in maternal health calculating how many lives could be saved and disabilities avoided through proper attention. radio. research has shown that the main factor impacting successful births is the presence of skilled attendants.3.30 Midwives. and 18 in Thailand. One of the main causes of death among young children is a lack of knowledge regarding childhood diseases. For example a computer-modelling tool showed that 5’500 infants died each year in Ghana due to sub-optimal breast-feeding. ICTs can help in this effort through more rapid diffusion of information about good maternal practice. can be an important vehicle to improve awareness about the prevention of deadly diseases. older ICT. 32 A July 1999 evaluation of a maternal health project in the Tororo district of Uganda based on radio technology.36 A possible indicator for measuring the impact of media campaigns on HIV/AIDS (as well as other diseases) prevention could be the number of people that adopted healthy lifestyles as a result of broadcasting. found that maternal mortality dropped 50 per cent following implementation of the project. establish support groups and obtain advice. nurses or doctors attend some 60 per cent of the births around the world.31 The Dreyfus Health Foundation Communications for Better Health (CBH) program has established interactive centres in 14 countries for the dissemination of computerized health information.38 4. The CBH system contains a vast amount of computerized information for example on local practices. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) electronic Reproductive Health Library (RHL) consists of pregnancy information on diskettes and CD-ROMs accessible through computers. The Internet also plays a role in HIV/AIDS prevention. and other diseases MDG goals 4-6 deal with health and have the specific targets of reducing infant and maternal mortality and halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS. 33 The decrease in the number of maternal/infant deaths because of use of ICTs is an indication that ICTs have an important role in saving both mother and child. In Tanzania. The interactive RHL is being trialled in 22 hospitals in Mexico.5 ICTs and environmental sustainability MDG Goal 7 has three associated indicators: integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and reverse loss . malaria. to determine if interactive dissemination of information improves obstetric practice.3. malaria and other major diseases. In the United States. 82 per cent of listeners surveyed said they had adopted a method of prevention as a result of listening to a radio soap opera. It allows users to contact others. retaining messages such as the need for protection and fewer partners. while in South Africa a majority of respondents indicated that they gained the most useful information about the disease from a radio dramatization. 34 Radio soap operas that dramatize the impact of HIV/AIDS also have an effect. An often overlooked. Access to information through the Internet could help medical practitioners and parents find solutions to treat sick children.

The Fairness Doctrine carried out between 1967-1970 in the United States. halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and achieve a significant improvement in the lives of slum dwellers. for example. required television networks to provide one anti-smoking messages for every three cigarette advertisements. the Internet). print advertising and other forms (e. These approaches need to be supplemented not only by nontraditional advertising outlets (e.g. The Fairness Doctrine came to an end in 1970. shopping.44 The challenge is whether anti-smoking campaigns can equal or even exceed the effectiveness of smoking advertisements. and information exchange. Computerized monitoring combined with geographical information systems and databases can measure water quality and pinpoint sources of pollution. The use of the Internet for advertising has increased and this new media has become a new battleground for tobacco control advocates and pro-tobacco forces. simulation. personal finance. The challenge is to map these statistics to environmental change. the figure could reach ten million by 2030. Has there been a reduction in paper production—and a corresponding reduction in the destruction of forest areas—as a result of increased use of electronic documentation and communication (Figure 4. Internet banking subscribers. ICTs enable greater participation by the population in activities to protect the environment through networking. If unchecked. Within two years. consumerto-business e-commerce transactions and students enrolled in ICT-based distance training already exist in some countries. right)?42 Water is an important environmental resource that is threatened in many parts of the world. smoking began to rise in 1971. Most commonly. shops. More research is required to measure the impact of strategies conducted by both sides on websites and chat rooms. For example. The latter give smokers who are trying to quit. and analysis of environmental processes. In New Zealand. This can reduce vehicular traffic to offices. banks. More teleworkers could help reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions that rose 82 per cent between 1994 and 2000. satellites can locate new sources of water and information technology helps consumers use water more efficiently. health and education to be carried out online. There are numerous studies indicating a strong link between tobacco advertising and product sales. 41 Another area of research would be to determine if the promise of the paperless office—one of the oft-cited benefits of ICTs—is being fulfilled. anonymous.39 ICTs also provide researchers with critical tools for the observation. 40 Environmentally friendly work habits are promoted through ICTs in areas such as the reduction of paper and working from home. in Ireland. personalised.5: No Smoking The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that four million people die around the world annually due to tobacco use. 43 These give rise to a number of indicators such as number of polluted water supplies found through the use of ICTs. ICTs improve access to safe water in a number of ways. left). new sources of fresh water discovered through ICTs and the amount of drinkable water conserved through ICTs. All of these contribute to sustainable development and protecting environmental resources.g. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS of environmental resources. ICTs also allow activities such as work. Using different media to publicize the same message multiple times can maximize the impact of smoking cessation messages. In fact. the 2. doctors and schools. outdoor billboards). Camel sales grew from $ 6 million to $476 million — a 80 — fold increase. Indicators such as the number of teleworkers. and expert support when needed. 85 . resulting in less pollution. In California. it was as early as the 1960s that the effects of public anti-smoking campaigns began to be felt. the numbers of calls to telephone help lines increased by almost 400 per cent as a result of increased advertising on television.5.45 Research has shown that the anti-smoking messages resulted in a decline in per capita cigarette consumption of at least five per cent. a cartoon figure to advertise their cigarettes.4. non-smoking messages had to be withdrawn several times because the resulting call volumes were too high for help line staff to manage. It featured ‘Joe Camel’. but also through telephone help lines.3 per cent of the employed population who are teleworkers have no need to drive to work (Figure 4. each message is disseminated through broadcast media. and a reduction in the prevalence of teenage smoking of three per cent. Other roles played by ICTs include the facilitation of improvement of human living conditions and access to fundamental life resources. The environment Box 4. Help lines can also be popular.5. Just one example was a 1988 RJ Reynolds media campaign aimed at the youth market.

Promote gender equality 4. world. motorcyle.6: The impact of ICTs on the MDGs Percentage change in different MDG indicators caused by ICT-based activities 1. 36.1% Home worker. malaria and other diseases 7. % Teleworker.6% Away from home. Ensure environmental sustainability 24 5. 91. 86 . 6. Figure 4. Reduce child mortality 5. 2. Eradicate extreme poverty 2. % 100% 90% Electronic 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Printed 30% 20% 10% 0% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Means of travel to work Location of work Note: Data in the right chart have been estimated based on the trend between 1998 and forecast for 2005. Type of worker (2002) and means of travel to work (2000).Improve maternal health 6.8 143 -10 -50 -2 % change Increase in income of Bangladesh village phone owners Increase in Increase in Decrease in Decrease in Increase in Decrease in CO2 primary school female tertiary infant health maternal condom imports car emissions enrolment in school problems among mortality in St.5: Is there a link? Means of travel to work (2000) and location of work (2002).WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Figure 4.7% Public transport. Source: ITU adapted from Central Statistics Office (Ireland) and Microsoft. Achieve universal primary education 3.HIV radio show teachers trained Australia from telemedicine in based program using ICTs online education US in Uganda Source: ITU. Combat HIV/AIDS. Ireland (left) and distribution between printed and electronic documents.3% Working at home 9.1% Distribution of printed and electronic documents. bicycle.7 0. on foot.2% Car. 1998-2005 (right) Ireland. 54. Lucia after from telework in Ireland Nepal from enrolment in families using following ICT.

number of slum dwellers using ICTs and number of slum dwellers whose lives have improved because of ICTs. ICTs also create economic opportunities through online promotion and sale of products. Therefore those who telework—and therefore work at home—cause a reduction of 2 per cent in CO2 emissions by not having to drive to work. Open Learning Australia (OLA) offers higher education through a combination of distance and on-line teaching. Achieve universal primary education Indicator Increase in income from ICTs Impact A 1999 study of so-called Village Pay Phone (VPP) owners in 50 villages in Bangladesh found that income from providing phone service constitutes 24 per cent of these households’ total income. 87 .7 per cent. Lucia found that condom imports rose 143 per cent after the program was aired.47 Suitable indicators include number of slum dwellers trained in ICTs. This would raise the net primary school enrolment rate 5. there would be a 30 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.9 per cent). In 2002. there were 6’129 students enrolled in OLA of which 3’485 were females (56.1 per cent) of those employed in Ireland drive to work. Combat HIV/AIDS. A little over half (54. Primary school teachers trained by ICT-based education Goal 3. A 1997-99 evaluation of 56 patients found those parents who used Baby CareLink reported a 10 per cent higher quality of care than those who did not use Baby CareLink. ICTs can enhance monitoring of existing housing and the design and construction of new houses in poor urban areas. Ensure environmental sustainability There are 38’700 teleworkers (Q3 2002) in Ireland (2.8 per cent higher. A January 1995 . malaria and other diseases Goal 7. Source: ITU. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Goal 2. Baby CareLink is a telemedicine program for parents of infants in the United States. Slums in Brazil. female tertiary school enrolment is 0. India and Kenya are three examples where innovative ICT projects are working to improve the lives of the local community. Promote gender equality and empower women Females enrolled in ICT-based education as percentage of total female tertiary enrolment Percentage of parents of small children using ICTbased health tools Percentage of maternal health workers using ICTs Percentage of adult population adopting health lifestyle after exposure to ICTbased health information Teleworkers as percentage of total in employment Goal 4. Table 4. As a result of OLA enrolment. education and health information online. Reduce child mortality Goal 5.September 1998 evaluation of an entertainment-education radio soap opera on family planning and HIV prevention in St. an additional 176’616 new primary school students could be enrolled once these teachers complete their training.3 per cent of total in employment). access to employment information and training. In Nepal an average of 4’430 people were being trained as primary school teachers using radio-based distance education in 2001.46 ICTs can also benefit the quality of life of slum dwellers by delivering services such as government.00582 kilograms of CO2 emissions per year. If all those in Ireland who say there job lends itself to teleworking (28 per cent of total employment) could telework.9 per cent). Based on the current student-to-teacher ratio of 40. found that maternal mortality dropped 50 per cent following implementation of the project. On average.3: How ICTs can impact the MDGs Selected examples MDG Goal 1. This is higher share than in overall higher education (54. A July 1999 evaluation of a maternal health project in the Tororo district of Uganda based on radio technology. Improve maternal health Goal 6.4. a private car emits 0. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS of slum dwellers is characterized by poor infrastructure and poor access to services.

As is obvious from the analysis below. there are several methodological difficulties: • What constitutes a village? For instance. various years (right) Mexico rural localities and population by locality size. Thus while a majority of the world’s inhabitants will have theoretical access to most ICTs in the future.7. 100 people. achieved in terms of infrastructure availability. • What is a community access point? Again there is some ambiguity over this target. 2002 (left) and percentage of localities with telephone service. For the purposes of measurement. etc). they omitted specifying global deadlines and targets in this regard. 1004'999 inhab. post office. various years.7. % 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Localities Population Localities without telephone service Population without telephone service <100 inhab. However. it might be necessary to specify a minimum village size of. • What are the boundaries of a village? In areas of highly dispersed or migrant populations.Viet glaico Nam desh 25 13 75 85 67 China India Indo. only six per cent of the population is without access to telephone service.Brazil Russia Pakinesia stan Source: ITU research and SCT (Mexico). goals and targets While the MDGs set out goals and targets relating to ICTs. Overall. • What does it mean to be “connected”? The vagueness in the WSIS draft Plan of Action is deliberate in the sense that it seeks to be technologically neutral (not specifying if the connection should be fixed or mobile and not specifying a minimum connection capacity). many of the targets have already been. their ability to use them will depend on knowledge and affordability. In monitoring this target. This is remedied to some extent in the WSIS draft Plan of Action. right). a central access point may not be very useful. 88 .7 per cent of the total in the country. public call box. The latest draft contains ten targets relating to ICT access. or are close to being.7: Connecting villages Distribution of rural localities by population size and availability of telephone service. top ten countries with largest rural population. Another issue is that most are infrastructure based. through a school. Percentage of localities with a telephone. Technological Figure 4. Internet café. there were 197’930 localities with a population of less than 4’999 tabulated in the 2000 Census.48 These targets derive from the different inputs to the drafting process. Of those. the costs of providing every village with an Internet connection (which would normally require a computer and modem) would be higher than just providing a telephone connection. but the main intention is to highlight the importance of shared access (for instance. for international comparisons (Figure 4.4 WSIS objectives. However. Target 1: To connect villages with ICTs and establish community access points. in Mexico. of which practically none has telephone service (Figure 4.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 4. making it difficult to define precise indicators for measuring them. left). the population living in those small villages only accounts for 2. to be achieved at the latest by 2015. three quarters are in localities with a population of less than 100. % 83 63 72 77 58 39 27 18 NA 10 67 74 54 % rural population 19 NA Ban Nigeria Mex. Mexico. 2002. say. How realistic are the targets? And how can they be monitored? One issue is that many of the targets are vague.

Target 3: To connect scientific and research centres with ICTs. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS neutrality again dictates that the precise means of access.7 With electricity With telephone With Internet N/A With electricity With telephone With Internet Source: ITU adapted from Office of Utility Regulation. at both national and international level. libraries and post offices would significantly enhance access around the globe. But it does require a political commitment. 2002 Jamaican schools. These targets can be seen as being closely related to target one. Figure 4. As with target one. secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs. with the emphasis therefore being on the infrastructure capability to connect rather than specifying any particular service. let alone about those with telephone service. colleges. post offices and archives with ICTs.0 5. % 96. and the quality.51 This works out at between US$ 90 – 525 million per year from 2004-2015. Target 2: To connect universities. The widespread availability of ICTs in schools. the definition of what it means to be “connected … with ICTs” is vague. 2002. 2002. libraries and post offices in Jamaica Percentage of primary and secondary schools with electricity. ITU has carried out research in South Asia and Africa with mixed results.8: Connecting schools.0 37. telephone service and Internet access (right) Jamaica. Many telecommunication authorities and national statistical offices were unable to provide the necessary data.1 billion for telephone service or up to US$ 6. Targets 2-6 are concerned with the availability of ICTs in different sectors such as education. Jamaica.4.3 57. which calls for all villages to be connected. Target 4: To connect public libraries.49 • How many villages are there? It is hard to say because there is no comprehensive database about the number of villages worldwide. Target 6: To connect all local and central government departments and establish websites and e-mail addresses. Global coordination of the project would help to bring down costs significantly. an area dealt with at more length in Chapter three of this report. telephone service and Internet access (left) and percentage of post offices and libraries with electricity. It is clear that a starting point for measuring this target would be a broad effort to tabulate the existing status. health and government. 89 . Target 5: To connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs.50 Assuming a figure of around US$ 750 per village for telephone service or up to US$ 4’200 per village including Internet access. % 97 Libraries Post Offices 64. it is estimated that some 1.3 99. Is this target realistic? Extrapolating from available data.3 21. for instance by providing a standardized solution and allowing for bulk purchasing of equipment and capacity. which aims for half of the world to have access to ICTs.3 billion including Internet access. and to target ten.6 9.3 96.1 Primary Secondary Jamaican libraries and post offices.6 33.5 million villages in developing nations remain unconnected to telephone networks. the total amount would be US$ 1. is left open to local interpretation and implementation. museums. cultural centres.

52 Even in the lowest income groups.8). Target 7: To adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the Information Society. getting connected is just the first step to using ICTs efficiently and effectively. the levels are close. presumably because this is not something governments would do. This target is one of the most sensitive. Globally. 2002. Although some developing countries compile the necessary statistics (Figure 4. Surprisingly. Access to devices is not far off. more households around the world have a television than a radio. the basics of computer use should be an important part of any educational curriculum. there is a grave measurement problem with targets 2-6. with 44 per cent having a radio and 42 per cent having a television. what hope is there for developing countries? In reality. several developed nations expressed uneasiness about their ability to meet the target. with terrestrial radio and television coverage figures at 95 and 89 per cent respectively. There is no mention of connecting business. of course. The first of these has already almost been achieved. The existence of these targets is an important element in the action plan because it shows that governments and other stakeholders have recognized the importance of public access in a world where commercial access to ICTs is unaffordable for many in developing nations. It would also be good to teach them about proper etiquette. Even for those that have high levels of achievement. radio and television sets). Target 8: To ensure that all of the world’s population has access to television and radio services.e. % 92 96 86 65 42 90 97 75 Low income Lower middle Upper middle High income World 86 94 100 Radio TV Radio TV Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. Resources are needed to take stock of exactly where the world is in accomplishing these targets. most do not.9: Broadcasting coverage Percentage of population covered by terrestrial radio and television broadcasting (left) and households with a radio or television (right) by income group. % Developing World 95 88 Developed 99 89 44 Households with broadcast device. taking into account national circumstances. During the WSIS Preparatory Committee meetings. this is not a target with an end date but rather a commitment to continually update curricula.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Most developed countries and some developing ones have already achieved these targets. However. As noted in chapter three. 2002. The challenges of the information society in 2015 will be much greater than they are now. It will be essential to introduce children to the basic tenets of how to maintain their privacy and apply principles of security. 2002 Terrestrial broadcasting population coverage. If developed countries feel unable to meet this target. Target 8 has two aspects: access to broadcast signals and to devices (i. 75 per cent of households have a television while 65 per Figure 4. 90 . among all income groups except the lowest. They also remain relevant for the majority that have not. government policies can significantly impact the ability of businesses to get connected. And.

it could have a significant impact on increasing access to radio services since mobile phones outnumber fixed ones in developing nations.g. In a real sense. But the target is vague about which ICTs are meant and what “easy reach” means. but there is no real agreement on how to do it. . There are a number of different initiatives to facilitate this. • establishing the technical conditions for all world languages to be present on the Internet. the global mobile population coverage is estimated at 80 per cent at the end of 2002. In conclusion. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS cent have a radio. Probably the most important is the coding of all major scripts into computer formats. So a more accurate interpretation of this target would be for “all the scripts of the world languages …” A second aspect of this target is to allow all the world’s scripts to be used in the uniform resource locator (URL) (e. Wireless communications provides a useful indicator for monitoring this target: the percentage of the population within range of a mobile cellular signal.g. There is some overlap of this target with targets 1-7 that deal with connecting villages and public institutions. www. The second of these elements is more significant as a target and has a number of dimensions. Target 9: To encourage the development of content and to put in place technical conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet. The third element above—actually using all languages on the Internet—is probably not realistic. for language groups that have fewer speakers. this target could be focussed towards fixed and mobile telephones. the economics of coding are more problematic. New technologies impact measurement of this target. Unfortunately. The conversion from Internet Protocol (IP) version 4 (in current use) to version 6 will facilitate this. in practice. as it will significantly expand the number of IP addresses available for use. the biggest barriers to actual achievement of this target is the lack of electricity for powering television sets. whereas a radio can be battery run. • using all world languages on the Internet. If this was made a standard feature. Another consideration is the availability of broadcast services over the Internet. This makes it possible for those with access to the Internet to listen to or watch broadcast services even if terrestrial based coverage is not available. there remain many languages that exist in spoken form only. This indicator avoids difficulties surrounding the definition of “within reach” since a mobile phone can in principle be used anywhere there is a signal.4. there are only an estimated 100 million home satellite antennas.int). or one for every ten households with television. but rather a principle. it should be possible. The figure is even higher if those having only mobile phones are included. and the lack of income to purchase a set and/or satellite receiving equipment and services. Many are non-written languages and others have only a small number of speakers. ITU calculates that over four fifths of the world’s 91 undertaken by the private sector (e. Furthermore. Target 10: To ensure that more than half the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTs within their reach. Target 8 would already cover radio and television. This target contains three separate elements: • encouraging the development of content. The cost of receiving satellite services is also higher than for terrestrial services. when developing computer applications in different languages). the target has been largely reached in the theoretical sense that the majority of the world is covered by radio and television services. Extrapolating from the some 100 countries that do. This is a task that is partly At one level at least. Worldwide. However. within the next few years. not all countries compile this useful indicator. There are over 5’000 world languages. Thus. This target refers specifically to coverage of ICTs in terms of both demography (half the world’s inhabitants) and geography (within easy reach). However.itu. in some countries it is not legal to receive the signals. Another ramification is the availability of mobile phones with built-in radios.53 Nevertheless. Practically all parts of the globe are covered by satellite radio and television signals. computers and the Internet. An important factor to bear in mind is that a major barrier to higher levels of television ownership is the lack of electricity. The first of these is not really a “target” as such. Also satellite television and radio signals are broadcast in a limited number of languages. the target is already met in that more than half the world’s households have fixed telephone service (57 per cent in 2002).

that figure is used. 2002 Percentage of population covered by telephone service. 2002 100 80 60 40 20 0 Developing (excl. More applicable indicators of universal access should therefore be measured. The MDG indicators for ICT availability show a large increase while many of the indicators proposed for monitoring progress towards the information society are more than half achieved. there is a need for more quantifiable evidence of the impact of ICTs on the MDGs. Data are not widely available on those having access to the Internet. or just under ten per cent of the world’s population. often fail to give an accurate picture. Thus. it is now becoming apparent. Existing data suggest that large strides have been made over the last decade towards enhancing access to ICTs. If mobile population coverage is available. The total number of estimated Internet users in 2002 was around 600 million. including well-defined indicators. Even the number of Internet users is based on rough estimates for many developing nations. 92 . These provide a broad set of targets for accessibility. These indicators suggest that although much progress has been made in infrastructure. Figure 4. Those indicators also reflect a long-standing tendency to base assessments on availability of infrastructure. Otherwise either the urban population percentage—on the grounds that considerable research suggests that all urban areas of the world have telephone service—or the percentage of households with a telephone is used.10). This estimate is based on various measures depending on availability of data for countries. as outlined in the indicative targets established by the World Summit on the Information Society. including 78 per cent of developing nations (65 per cent excluding China and India. proposed for the monitoring of this target are of necessity a compromise — chosen because of their wide data availability — and they do not necessarily measure the extent to which individuals have access to or use the technologies. connectivity and coverage. ICTs also have a big role to play in achieving the other MDGs. China and India) China and India Developed World 65 94 97 81 Source: ITU. there are growing bottlenecks in terms 4. To begin with. monitoring of this target will require efforts to enhance existing information through the use of surveys.5 Conclusions Information and communication technologies are recognized as playing an important role in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In this chapter. Another interpretation would be that the target refers specifically to Internet access.10: World telephone coverage Percentage of the world's population with access to telephone service. with target 18 setting the specific objective of making available to all the benefits of ICTs. which. ICTs are indispensable for providing the databases and web-based information for tracking the MDGs. However “having access” to the Internet is not the same thing as actually using it. we have seen how the indicators that have been selected and Figure 4.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 population has theoretical access to telephone service. by income group. On a deeper level.

5).6: Measuring the information society The draft World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plan of Action contains a full section on follow-up and evaluation that focuses mainly on benchmarking and indicators. the information society is an evolving concept and measurement of it needs to focus on people and how they use ICT tools. • Publishing an ICT Development Report. Many more live on less than the annual income of US$ 1’340 per year that is estimated to be the minimum level of affordability for telephone ownership. It is likely that. • Developing measures of the digital divide. 93 . The draft WSIS Plan of Action contains a number of suggestions for further work in benchmarking and monitoring (Box 4. While the starting point should be indicators for measuring access. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Box 4.54 • Reporting on the universal accessibility of ICTs. there is a commitment to develop and present. For instance. • Developing and launching a website of ICT success stories. • Developing coherent and international comparable indicators for the information society. during the second phase of the WSIS. to be held at Tunis from 16 to 18 November 2005. this is the major challenge that lies ahead. A special workshop just prior to WSIS organized by six international organizations— Monitoring the Information Society: Data. There are several elements under this item: • Developing and launching a composite information and communication technology (ICT) Development Index. this group will never be able to own a telephone. a mobile phone or a computer with an Internet connection. For those concerned with indicators.4. an estimated 800 million of the world’s population survive on less than US$ 1 per day. of actual usage due to knowledge and affordability. Measurement and Methods—aims to tackle some of these issues. without a significant and sustained rise in levels of household wealth. “a Framework Document for Information Society Measurements and Analysis”. Much more needs to be done to enhance the capacity of both developed and developing nations to collect the necessary indicators. • Developing and measuring gender-specific indicators. Beyond that. including community connectivity indicators.

htm. accessed November 30. accessed November 7. According to a 2002 article a research project in Switzerland found that mobile phone radiation disturbs sleep patterns and an Australian study claimed that mobile phones might cause damage to nerves around ears. (2002. See: National Cancer Institute.com/articles/blackice_prague_100198. Available from: http://www. (2002. accessed November 10. For an overview of e-waste.com. September 8). Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.htm. “Computer Users to be screened for ‘Infostress’”. see: Guardian Online (UK). 3rd World Telecommunication/ ICT Indicators Meeting.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/carpal_doc. which has been linked to work-related cumulative trauma of the wrist.svtc.html. 2003. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2003. 2003 and World Bank available from: http://www. Home Affairs.org/cleancc/pubs/it_sustain_natstep. accessed November 30.itu. 2003. “United Nations Millennium Declaration”. accessed November 30. Available from: http://cis.html. 2003.un. (June 2002). (2003). Wired News. 2003.58850. Just say no to e-waste: background document on hazards and waste from computers. UN available from: http://unstats.soumu.org/cleancc/pubs/sayno. Building a “New Japan-Inspired IT Society”. According to the WHO. “Mobile Phones Can ‘Cook’ Your Brain”. accessed November 7. 1998).nih. Spine. June 30).org/unsd/mi/mi_goals. accessed November 7.html. Today still there is no clear evidence that confirms any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.com/news/print/0.co. see Blackice (Prague).undp. see: Butler. Available from: www. 2003. N.pdf. including mobile phones.lwwonline. Information and Communications in Japan. 2003.639561. accessed November 7. 2003.svtc. accessed November 30. 2003). accessed November 30. (2001). Available from: http://ipsapp006. the National Cancer Institute offers some guidelines. Information Technology and Sustainability: Enabling the Future.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 1 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. You take it: PC law”. For a discussion of this phenomenon. Carpal tunnel syndrome.com/content/getfile/1140/178/17/abstract. In 2000.gov/fact/2_10. November).uk/theissues/article/0.who. 2003. Available from: http://www.00. L.html. Millennium Development Goal websites include UNDP available from: http://www.int/ITU-D/ict/WICT02/doc/pdf/Doc07_E. Minges. “You make it. more research is needed.un. accessed November 7. (June 2001). “Back Pain Online: A CrossSectional Survey of the Quality of Web-Based Information on Low Back Pain”. Available from: http://www.int/osg/spu/ni/mobileovertakes/index. 2003.svtc. Available from: http://www.htm. (2000. after being aggravated.htm.nih. 2003. (October 1. M. Available from: www. For more information. occurs when tendons or ligaments in the wrist become enlarged. see ITU. Ministry of Public Management. August). For a study on the quality of health information.int/peh-emf/research/en.rfsafe. “How to evaluate health information on the Internet: Questions and Answers”. “Gender and ICT Statistics”. The Age. even though it saw no definite evidence of health risk. at www. It is estimated that by 2005 there will be one obsolete computer for every new one sold. accessed November 7. accessed November 30.ninds. “Mobile overtakes fixed”. “Mobile phones safety fears”.htm. 2003. often from inflammation.asp.org. accessed November 7. (2003.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e. the World Health Organisation (WHO) advised making short calls and using hands free devices. accessed November 7. 2003. A 1998 article warns about health risks. Available from: http://www.au/articles/2003/06/30/1056825311456.wired. 2003.itu.org/mdg/. To help people distinguish between “good” and “bad” online information. 2003. (January 25. Available from: http://www.6512.go. Available from: http://www. (2003). see: WHO’s “International Electro Magnetic Fields Project (EMF)” available from: www.org/cleancc/pubs/pctvexecsum. Available from: www. Posts and Telecommunications (Japan).theage.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/index. See National institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.developmentgoals.guardian. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 94 .html?from=storyrhs. Available from: www. ITU. (June 5.htm.htm. 2002). and Foster.htm. Poison PCs/Toxic TVs. see: Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. accessed December 1.1294.00.nci.

and L. “Learning Online. UNDP.org/info21/public/review/pb-revke. See: Rowe. Available from: http://www. 2003. Australian Bureau of Statistics.html.mssrf. See: “OLSET — SETTING NEW STANDARDS FOR RADIO EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA”.doc. ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy Number 8. accessed November 30. 2003. Constance. and R. 2003.gov.iadb. accessed November 11.php. (1999. accessed November 30. Village Pay Phones and Poverty Reduction: Insights from a Grameen Bank Initiative in Bangladesh.nsf/Lookup/ACD1C9BDF56D6CF9CA25696F0079BED6. Available from: http://www. one classroom”.com/motoinfo/20th_anniversary/docs/six_stories. Bonn (Germany). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 .. H.January – February).electronic-school. 2003. (2003). 2003. 2003. April).800 teachers. Motorola. Ministry of Education (Nepal) “Distance Education Centre” webpage at: http://www.html. The data could be analyzed to see if farms with ICTs have higher output than those without.uk/data/Issue22/e-for-education. accessed November 11. accessed November 10. accessed November 30. Perraton. are textbooks obsolete?” Electronic School. 2003.moe.htm.htm.undp. Around half the schools in South Africa have insufficient textbooks. 2003.org. Axelson.htm. Available from http://www. 2003.developments. UK Department for International Development (DFID). L. von Braun. The International Development Magazine. “The South African Radio Learning Programme” at http://www. A Review of Case Studies Related to Distance Education in Developing Countries.com/199906/0699f1.oecd. R. accessed December 1. May). (10 June 2000). As web based curriculum grows. 2003.org/hdr2003. A. accessed November 10. Available from: http://www.motorola. Available from: http://www. June).org/informationvillage/infovil. March). Human Development Report. “1. Hardy.freeplayfoundation. (1999. accessed November 30.apc. (1997. Available from: http://www. Available from: http://www.org/dataoecd/60/21/2740065.org/News/NewsItems/CaseOLSET. (2003). accessed November 11. 2003. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 13 MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. “Australian farms are using information technology more”. Media Release. Available from: http://motoinfo. accessed November 11. M. (2001. “Unit costs have tended to be lower than conventional teachers’ courses because of savings in residential costs and economies of scale that can be achieved through distance education. accessed November 30.org. J. “E for education”. This information might be collected through agricultural surveys like in Australia where the national statistical office compiles data on the number of farms with computers and Internet access.htm. Available from: http://www. (1999. (2000).sn. “The new mobile world”.gov. But the poorest countries need to spend more on education to escape their poverty traps—and do not have enough resources to make such basic investments”.de/publications/publ_zef_dp. 2003. 2003. “Information Village Research Project”. M. Costs per successful student have often been between one-half and two-thirds of conventional teacher education programmes”.html. June).undp. Available from: http://www. P. G.pdf. Imfundo Project Background Paper #5. “Countries can usually spend more on education as their economies grow. Available from: http://www. 2003. Issue 22.np/central/dec.au/Ausstats/abs@. IDB America. A Case Study of ICT and School Reform at School 5.id21. Available from: http://www. Shrestha.org/idbamerica/archive/stories/1998/eng/cont. “…e-learning can help to train teachers who then go out to primary and secondary level schools…that will help towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals”.zef. accessed November 30.4. (2003. Akhter. OECD/CERT ICT Programme. Bayes.org/olset. accessed December 1. “Teaching the Teachers”.abs.

“My online correspondence with friends infected with HIV+/AIDS has given me a basis for comparison. 1992-1997. 2003. and E.abs. T. accessed November 30. accessed November 30.unmillenniumproject. Available from: http://www. 2003.htm. accessed November 30.org/connections/AprJun03/AprJun03_p1. elearning may present a channel of education that is neutral and does not involve direct interaction between the sexes thus facilitating female participation”. (2001. Gender and Global E-learning. 2003.com/cgi/reprint/324/7337/555. See: Ferguson.asp?Report=95. Available from: http://www.agi-usa.org/disted/Teaching/Design/kn-02. accessed November 30. 2003. See: Fillip.aed. IK Notes.gov. E. accessed December 1. B. Available from: http://www. 2003.pewinternet.who. working in a continuum of care.org/en/HIVAIDS/Publications/Archive/aidscapreports/ DominicanRepublicMeetingTheChallenge/Mtng_Chall_HIV_Epid_DR_Reaching_Youth. Distance Learners in Higher Education.html. Myers. J. “Participation in Education: Home-based higher education”. February). accessed November 30. accessed December 1. Musoke. PEDIATRICS. April-June).pdf.ppt.org/documents/tf06_july10. Catherine.int/reproductive-health/mpr/attendants. Available from: www. 2003. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 96 . Connections.com/home/EysenbachGunther/teach/had7001-2003a. See: Pew Internet Project. “The skilled attendant. “The health benefits of soap”.pdf.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 26 “In traditional societies where female enrollment in formal education is faced by unease of conservative cultures. Available from: http://www.. Thompson.html.htm.worldbank.nsf/0/584124099e6239d1ca2569ee0015d8ab?OpenDocument. M. M. “From patients to end users”. M. accessed November 30. (2002. September 12). P. “Effects of an Entertainment-Education Radio Soap Opera on Family Planning And HIV Prevention in St.id21. Australian Bureau of Statistics. accessed November 30. 2003. Gray. Available from: http://bmj. Available from: http://www. July 16).worldbank.html. 2003. See the “Maternal and newborn health” webpage at http://www. 2003. One AIDS patient explained. Internet Health Resources. 9 March). Australian Social Trends 1995. Insights Education. et al. Available from: www. accessed November 30. (2000. (2002. Regis. Available from: http://www. AED “Profiles” webpage at: http://ict. (2003.au/Ausstats/abs@.pdf.org/reports/toc. Dreyfus Health Foundation. accessed November 30.worldbank. St. “Baby CareLink: Using the Internet and Telemedicine to Improve Care for HighRisk Infants”. (2003. 2003.yi. December). Task Force on Environmental Sustainability.org/afr/ik. No.org/pubs/journals/2614800. 2003. BMJ. A. (2003. accessed December 1. Available from: http://www. 2003. See Family Health International. Meeting the Challenge of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in the Dominican Republic: The AIDSCAP Response.(2000.dhfglobal.bmjjournals.org/gender/digitaldivide/020912fillip. accessed November 30. 2003. is the single most important factor in keeping women healthy and safe in pregnancy”. The Dominican Republic campaign combined ICTs by including a telephone number people could call for additional information after hearing or seeing the HIV/AIDS commercial on the radio or television. Available from: http://www1. April 18). (2003. January 2002.fhi. Vaughan.html. December).org/insights/insights-ed01/insights-issed01-art05. A similar indicator has been used in the US where 88 per cent of those seeking health information online stated that the “information they found improved the way they took care of their health”. as well as tips for staying healthy”. Available from: http://www. Lucia”. accessed November 30. 2003.org/portfolio/sectors/health. “Maternal Health Care in Rural Uganda”. 40. Background Paper. International Family Planning Perspectives. January 25).

2003. Available from: http://www. Available from: http://www.PDF.itu. 2003. (2003). Sustain IT. accessed November 11. “Travel to Work”. it is estimated that there would be at least a five per cent savings in home energy consumption through household monitoring systems.br/midia/midia_20010205. ICT Stories Competition.who. Lack of appropriate urban planning and design is one of the main factors identified by the Task Force on Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers.cdi. Walsh. Available from: http://www. 2003. September). accessed November 11. accessed November 30. September). 2003. It is estimated that this resulted in a savings of paper equivalent to five stories high. See: US General Service Administration. See: Gamos & Big World Research.sustainableicts. In Nairobi. “Module on Teleworking”. Available from: http://www. Marketing and Addictive Behaviour — A Neuroscientific Perspective. E. “The real Digital Revolution”.org/KUMINFO%20F. (2002.pdf. 2003. young children are acquiring ICT skills via an Internet kiosk. ICTS AND THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 40 “ICT and Environment: Friends or Foes” at the Development Gateway web page: http://www. Available from: http://www. A US government agency carried out its 2001 procurement exercise in a paperless environment using only the Internet and CDs. 2003. 1). accessed November 11.pdf. Telework has been defined as “persons who work from home and could not do so without the use of a computer with a telecommunications link”. 2003.cso.org/node/133831/sdm/docview?docid=569225. April). April). Background Paper of the task force on improving the lives of slum dwellers. A-130”. See Barden. 2003. Smoking Cessation Media Campaigns from Around the World: Recommendations from Lessons Learned. February).developmentgateway. For example some 60’000 children living in Brazilian slums have been trained in ICTs. 2003.org/CD-ROM/lu65rw2n/papers/u06-a. All these reports are available from: www. June).int/wsis. Posts and Telecommunications (Japan). In Egypt.pdf. In Ghana.int/ITU-D/ict/mexico03/index. (20 February 2003). (2000. accessed November 30. (2001. accessed November 30.“Kumasi Information Database (KUMINFO)”. accessed December 1.dk/document/e74523. See: Ministry of Public Management. a water database helped pinpoint a large source of pollution. Available from: http://www. Available from: http://inet2002. In a New Delhi. Schar.org/cases/PDFcases/newdelhi.htm.who. 2003 At the time of writing. accessed November 11. As of 21October 2003.html.org/documents/tf08apr18. “The children of a New Delhi Slum and a PC/Internet Kiosk”.cfm. (2001. 2003. the US Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires all agencies to provide the option of electronic document submission when practicable as a substitute for paper.org. accessed November 11.unmillenniumproject. “Appendix II to OMB Circular No. D. satellite technology has been used to located new sources of fresh water. See INET. See: Central Statistics Office (Ireland).worldwatercouncil.ie. CDI. Quarterly National Household Survey. (2003. accessed November 11. Sustainable initiatives. see (Q1 2000). to measure the number of villages with community access points. Data on greenhouse emissions from private cars are in the Statistical Yearbook of Ireland 2003. K. The 2002 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference adopted a resolution calling for the development of a new “community connectivity indicator”. R. Available from: http://estrategy. Available from: http://www. See: World Water Vision.pdf.sustainit. the latest version of the draft Plan of Action was document WSIS03/PC-3/DT/5 (Rev. 2003. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 97 . (2001.org/Vision/Documents/ICT-report. See “Indicators workshop on community access to ICTs” webpage at http://www. 2003. slum dwellers create sandals from recycled tires and sell them over the Internet.int/health-mktg/presentations/david_walsh. In Japan. accessed November 11.ppt. India slum. See UN Millennium Project. Available from http://www. For data on the means of travel to work in Ireland.pdf. R. accessed November 30. Report of the Thematic Panel on Information and Communication Technology and its Implications for Water Resources. Quarterly National Household Survey. (2003).gov/omb_appendix. (2002.itu. A workshop on measuring community access to ICTs including the definition of a digital community centre was held 6-8 October 2003.4. November). See Baggio. Home Affairs. and Gutierrez. Kenya. accessed December 1.

accessed November 30. 51 52 53 54 98 . accessed November 30.wsis.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 50 This figure is derived from developing country rural population and an estimate of 1’000 inhabitants per village. China and India are excluded as most of their villages already have telephone service.int/mlds/resources/WIPO. 2003. (2002.org/seminar/meeting-2003/workshop/default. For example surveys typically ask if the respondent has a stand alone radio set which may cause confusion about whether this includes radios in stereo systems.itu. depend to a large extent on economies of scale and would not be applicable to all countries. For a more recent description of the issues. accessed November 30.itu.org/stats/documents/2003. It also assumes that 80 per cent of villages are not connected. See ITU. These are highly general costs. Measurement and Methods” website at http://www. (2002. See “Multilingual Domain Names: Joint ITU / WIPO Symposium” available from: http://www. 2002 and Gilat. accessed November 30. 2003.itu. A workshop was held on this topic in December 2001. alarm clocks or automobiles.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/philippines/index. Available from: http://www.aptsec. The figures for telephone service are derived from estimates of the cost of connecting Philippine villages using Global Mobile Personal Communication Satellite Systems while the cost for Internet access is derived from estimates for Very Small Aperture Terminals. Improving IP Connectivity in the Least Developed Countries. 2003.htm. accessed November 30. Pinoy Internet: Philippines Case Study. One reason for the statistical data showing relatively low household availability of radios may be due to flaws in questionnaire design.html. April). 2003. March). Broadband IP over DVB for IP Connectivity.htm.unece. see the “APT-ITU Joint Workshop on ENUM and IDN” available from: http://www.html.int/osg/spu/ni/ipdc/index. Available from: http://www. See “Monitoring the Information Society: Data.12.

A NEW. One of the main benefits of an index is that ICT development can be compared between individual countries. can be used to generally represent the state of ICT development in a country. The values obtained for ICTs. almost all of them concentrate primarily on developed economies. existing indices developed by various organizations are reviewed. While the advantages of an index are undeniable. and many do not systematically use internationally comparable indicators.5. Comparisons are particularly valuable between countries of similar income level. A trade-off has to be made by index designers between breadth of coverage and level of detail. In this chapter. With the growing recognition of ICTs as an effective tool for social development and economic growth. permitting policy-makers to judge the effectiveness of ICT programmes and initiatives. and broad applicability across all countries — for measuring access to the information society. nations often struggle in certain areas of ICT but may excel in others. measure progress and make useful international comparisons. instance. Data collection 5. For this.1 While a number of existing indices go some way to meeting this need. there is a growing international demand for reliable and comprehensive statistical information to help countries set their own targets. This is true of all scores and rankings of this nature. social or regional characteristics. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX A s the world moves towards a global information society. In earlier chapters. this report has attempted to identify a basic set of indicators — aimed at striking an optimum balance between detailed information. and to missing or incorrect data. because they can provide an excellent basis for realistic targets or policy decisions to be established. and building on the previous work by ITU on developing indicators and indices. which are always imperfect due to methodological assumptions that may not be applicable to every country. An index is useful for simplifying comparisons but should not be used to draw overly simplistic conclusions. A NEW. An index can capture multiple effects and produce results that tell a wider. there are evergreater incentives for countries to foster higher access levels. for 99 . it is also important to bear in mind the limitations of narrowing a large amount of information into a single figure. A time series index allows for comparisons from one year to the next in an economy. the framework for a new. Other factors such as social and demographic conditions or affordability also have an impact. inclusive Digital Access Index (DAI) is set out. Furthermore.1 Why indices are important An index combines multiple indicators into a single overall value. countries are becoming increasingly aware of the central importance of extending access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) to their populations. Indices are equally useful in measuring ICT developments over time. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX 5. In light of the strengths and weaknesses of these indices. more complete story about the economy than a single indicator. or with similar geographic. a selection of indicators — usually compiled into an index — gives a far better overview than any single indicator. which can be reflected to some extent by using an index. Alongside countries’ desire to increase ICT access at the national level. categories or regions.

1). Benefits of the index include coverage over a wide range of variables. While the latest set of variables are quite relevant and the categories logical. and sophistication of use. Indices aimed at providing greater detail will use a higher number of variables. While the TAI did not solely measure ICTs. There have also been several one-off indices. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). private and academic—compile ICT indices. have done so (Box 5. for instance. the Mosaic Group provides a framework for measuring the state of Internet diffusion in an economy. The index focuses primarily on business adoption of ICT and there are a large number of qualitative variables. index allows “countries to compare and assess their e-business environments” and determines “the extent to which a market is conducive to Internet-based opportunities”. different economies provide different levels of detail in different data areas. geographic dispersion. indicators for social aspects tend to be qualitative.2 This section briefly examines some of the most popular ones. However. The Mosaic group does not combine the six factors to compute an overall index score for a country although others. notably ITU. The World Economic Forum (WEF) publishes a Network Readiness Index (NRI) that measures “the degree of preparation of a nation or community to participate in and benefit from ICT developments”. used 5. in its 2001 Human Development Report. organizational structure. in keeping with the methodology of UNDP’s other indices. and the use of statistical tools to build categories and impute missing data. The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes an annual index — now in its fourth year — of e-readiness rankings.8 Using eight variables spread over four categories the TAI measured the technological capacity in a country. The TAI.6 Six factors are rated: pervasiveness. The methodology is well documented.2 Existing ICT indices A number of organizations—intergovernmental. The 2002-03 index covers 82 countries over a range of 120 indicators.7 Their “Infostate” Index ranks 139 economies based on 17 indicators across two categories. so that values can and have been computed by different groups. social and cultural environment. The methodology also changed in 2003. consumer and business adoption. it still is limited to less than half of the nations in the world. with a large number of variables coming from surveys. Covering a wide range of economies on the other hand. the mix of quantitative and qualitative data in the analysis means that scores are more vulnerable to subjective interpretation. examines and ranks countries according to their ability to “absorb and utilize Information and Information Technology”. telecommunication and social.5 Covering the sixty largest economies. Internet. sector absorption. business environment. Unfortunately. One drawback is that some of the indicators selected such as Internet hosts or secure servers may not be optimum for representing the actual situation in a country. the 100 . Although the index covers more countries than most other indices. making comparisons more difficult. many of its variables were ICT related. Data omissions or errors will have a stronger relative influence on the overall index score. One drawback is use of survey results for data that are susceptible to respondent bias. Another interesting index comes from Orbicom. readiness and usage.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 is rarely symmetric. included a Technology Achievement Index (TAI). and offers a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data. legal and policy environment. the IDC does not make its detailed methodology publicly available so it is difficult to analyse.3 Categories include environment. the lack of an overall score makes it more difficult to make broad comparisons of the overall state of Internet diffusion in different countries. which claims to be the oldest of all ICT indices. and rankings cover only a limited number of countries. making objective analysis more difficult. a detailed methodology. implying that results cannot necessarily be compared with previous years. What makes the Orbicom index different is that it compiles each country’s index in relation to the average of all of the other countries’ indicators. Each factor is ranked on a scale of zero (nonexistent) to four (highly developed). 4 The index covers 53 countries and contains 15 variables organized into four categories: computers. The latest version of the market research firm International Data Corporation’s (IDC) Information Society Index. In other words. The index has been constructed so that one can observe changes over time and index values going back several years are provided. Also. and supporting e-services. All data used is quantitative so that subjective bias is avoided. connectivity. requires limiting the number of variables used. resulting in a smaller set of “well-covered” economies. The index uses around 100 variables organized into the following six categories: connectivity and technology infrastructure. As another example.

and the last at how prepared users were for the technologies. In addition to building the four indices. 2002 (left) and Mosaic values of ITU Internet Case Study economies. with the disadvantage that the choice of indicators and data omissions or discrepancies had a large impact on the score. ITU itself has recently developed its own indices. For example. China Korea (Rep. Among improvements identified for this index are the use of a weighting structure for categories and inclusion of a method for testing the robustness of rankings. China Denmark Sweden Switzerland United States Norway Korea. One interesting element was the attempt to measure the developmental chain of technology in a country. 9 As with Mosaic. While many other indices have drawn upon ITU resources. A NEW. geographic dispersion. UNCTAD does not combine the category scores to produce an overall ICT score. ITU used the Mosaic Group framework for measuring the state of Internet diffusion in different economies. This is because Internet hosts may be registered within a country.have been compiled for 20 economies (Box Figure 5. and as part of its mandate to help extend the benefits of ICTs to the world’s populations. of United Kingdom Netherlands Iceland 60 62 64 66 68 Internet case study rankings. right).1: ITU indices As the United Nations’ agency responsible for telecommunications. the second and third at diffusion. and sophistication of use .pervasiveness. organizational infrastructure. usage and market structure. ITU published a Mobile/Internet index in 2002 measuring the relative levels of mobile and Internet development (Box Figure 5.10 This index also attempted to predict how well each economy might take advantage of ICTs in the future. and usage. providing a limited picture of global ICT levels. Box Figure 5. a significant number of variables and wide coverage. 2000-03 (right) Top 10 Mobile/Internet Index rankings.1: ITU indices Top ten economies in Mobile/Index. Internet for a Mobile Generation. leading to a distortion of the national figures. Despite the low number of variables. The first category looked at the creation of technology. access.5. UNCTAD’s methodology uses a Box 5. namely connectivity. policy environment. Rep. In its fourth Internet Report. 2000-03 HK. The United Nation Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has produced several indices measuring the development of ICTs in economies. Rather. As part of the Internet Case Studies project. 2002 Hong Kong. connectivity infrastructure. 101 . UNCTAD averages the scores from the connectivity and access indices to create an ICT Diffusion Index.11 Overall scores for the six categories: . The index put more emphasis on fewer variables.1. but they may equally be registered outside it. sector absorption. ITU has long been involved in developing statistics and in analysing ICT developments.) Singapore Malaysia Mauritius Thailand Indonesia Philippines Maldives Hungary Cape Verde Fiji Egypt Bolivia Vietnam Laos Uganda Nepal Cambodia Ethiopia Pervasiveness Dispersion Absorption Connectivity Organization Sophistication 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Source: ITU Internet for a Mobile Generation and ITU Internet Country Case Studies. the index could be compiled for only 72 countries. The index covered 177 economies with 26 quantitative variables broken into three clusters: infrastructure. the work presents four separate indices that can be used to measure certain elements of development. left). the selection of “Internet hosts per capita” instead of measuring actual Internet users falls prey to the unreliability of Internet hosts. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX a limited number of variables. Benefits of the Mobile/Internet Index methodology include the use of strictly quantitative data.1.

2. on most international ICT rankings. The potential inaccuracies of such an approach can easily be illustrated by comparing Korea and some usually higher-ranking countries. Another shortcoming is that the rankings tend to weight per capita income highly. and do not include adjustments for qualitative differences. left). On a per capita basis. In terms of purchasing power parity. Korea also has one of the leading ICT manufacturing sectors in the world. not only with practically every household having telephone service. Korea is not in the top ten. This is misleading since host computers can be located anywhere and are not necessarily in the country of their domain name. For example. The case of Korea suggests that these scorecards are not very useful in accurately measuring ICT achievements in some countries. 13 Like many European nations. Hypothetical assumptions appear to have more weight with the rankings more focused on the means rather than the ends. Yet. right). Korea on the other hand. Damned Lies and Statistics”12 The Republic of Korea is well advanced in information and communication technology (ICT) development. This figure is distorted because not all prepaid cards are active. On the other hand. It leads the world in broadband Internet access. rate high per capita values without adjusting for methodological discrepancies. a nation that supposedly allows a greater degree of competition than another would be ranked higher even though the latter might have a far greater level of infrastructure. but also with two-thirds having broadband Internet access. has few mobile prepaid subscribers and consequently has a more realistic. Box Figure 5. which effectively inflates the total figure reached. affecting its ranking. it appears to rank higher than Korea on this indicator. Korea’s ranking should be raised because of this fact. Related to the high level of ICT development is the fact that Koreans rank high in literacy and overall educational achievement. is ranked fourth in overall access to the Internet and was one of the first countries to launch third-generation mobile Internet services.2: “Lies. few Asian nations rank among the top ten. does not include ISDN channels.KR domain name—is relatively low. Korea on the other hand. In the case of Korea. Global rankings also appear to be biased in favour of theoretical perceptions of competitiveness rather than actual achievement. the number of Internet host computers in Korea—based only on the . It has achieved universal access. Another methodological weakness is that many surveys use the number of Internet hosts per capita to measure Internet usage. Korea would in fact rank relatively higher (Box Figure 5. for example Switzerland. Korea’s high level of Internet and broadband penetration is rarely reflected in the standings (Box Figure 5. The rankings are typically designed to favour a common denominator of widely available indicators. A similar situation exists for mobile cellular subscriber figures that include prepaid cards. Korea’s per capita income is twice that of the conventional measurement. As Switzerland has a high proportion of prepaid cards. In general. Why the discrepancy between the statistics and the rankings? For one thing. it is doing exceedingly well in ICTs despite a relatively low per capita income.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Box 5.2: Re-comparing Korea and Switzerland Per 100 inhabitants Switzerland Korea 68 Per 100 inhabitants Switzerland Korea Mobile celluar without prepaid Mobile cellular with prepaid Main lines without ISDN Main lines with ISDN 43 68 79 49 56 49 72 Broadband subscribers 22 6 55 Internet users 35 1 Internet hosts 8 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database.2. but relatively lower. Switzerland includes Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) channels in the number of main lines—a common indicator in all of the indices. If the number of physical telephone lines were compared. 102 . there is often a bias of quantity over quality. If anything. figure for total mobile penetration.

If the population cannot afford to pay for ICT products and services. other policy areas that are not directly related to the ICT sector. Furthermore. Among other things.1: Factors affecting ICT access Indicators making up the Digital Access Index § Broadband subscribers §Fixed telephone subscribers QUALITY § INFRASTRUCTURE § Mobile cellular subscribers § Internet access price International Internet bandwidth § Internet USAGE users § Literacy KNOWLEDGE § School enrolment AFFORDABILITY Source: ITU. they will not be able to use newer ICTs such as computers or the Internet. However. that is. The second is to be digitally inclusive. The DAI has three main aims. These are availability of infrastructure. Figure 5. 103 5. If the ICT experience is poor. and of the pitfalls encountered in the design of such indices. If the infrastructure is not available. which calls upon governments to: “make available the benefits of new technologies. there can be no access. people will either cease using them or be incapable of using them effectively or creatively. these often make only general summaries available to the public and charge substantially more for complete data. External factors will therefore be more useful for the interpretation of the results. it can be used to track Target 18 of Millennium Development Goal 8.2). The degree of market liberalization is also difficult to quantify objectively.1 and Box 5. In reality. none is completely satisfactory for measuring access to ICTs. there are countries that measure up as having a restrained regulatory environment. with the risk of some distortions owing to the small number of variables used. but that are doing well in ICTs. The indices described above are not the only ones available. specifically information and communications” (see Chapter four). One is to measure a country’s capacity for using ICTs. As described later. affordability. of course. A third is to make the index as transparent as possible. While there are also a number of commercial organizations that compile indices. it can of course be argued that others also affect ICT access. most are not specifically targeted at measuring ICT access. and vice versa. For example. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX limited but robust group of variables to capture ICT effects. transparency and comparability are compromised. Beyond this range of factors.5. A NEW. in order to include the widest number of countries and enhance clarity. educational level and quality. If citizens do not have a certain level of education. Finally. and some have methodological snags or are susceptible to distortions due to the use of qualitative variables (see Box 5. While there is no shortage of ICT indices then. also have an impact on ICT access. it is unclear how that affects ICT development. it is important to concentrate on only those factors that affect immediate availability. But that impact does not affect what a country has today in terms of infrastructure. The DAI overcomes limitations of earlier indices. a fifth — actual usage of ICTs — is critical for matching reality with theory. especially with regard to the low number of countries covered. Conversely. a liberalized ICT market could result in more competition that might lead to additional infrastructure or a drop in prices. for example by using them as explanatory variables for why some countries are doing better than others. although levels of liberalization may have an impact. in addition to the aforementioned four factors. but they do provide an idea of the major ones developed to date. Moreover. country coverage and choice of variables. there can be no access. but well chosen variables. rather than as actual indicators. One such example is a country’s educational system. to embrace as many countries as possible in the index.3). people’s ability to pay for it or the skills that are in place to do so. the inclusion of usage also captures other aspects not explicitly accounted for in the other four factors. Wherever these indices use too many variables. Four fundamental factors impact a country’s ability to access and use ICTs (Figure 5.3 The Digital Access Index ITU has developed a Digital Access Index (DAI) to measure the overall ability of individuals in a country to access and use ICTs. . in terms of its specific focus on access. These considerations suggest that the index would be composed of a few.

as shown by the educational profiles of users. Affordability is also a major barrier. 5. twice as many highly educated people use the Internet as less educated persons. businesses and the government. schools.3.9 3. In Peru. particularly for those already online. Unavailability of infrastructure is often cited as a main barrier. pricing and education on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) access seems obvious from an intuitive angle. The lack of a PC is also the main reason given in Peru (39 per cent). 38 per cent of respondents say they cannot afford Internet access while in Jamaica the corresponding figure is 32 per cent. Likewise in Mauritius. where 90 per cent of those with a university education use a PC. those with some university education account for over half the Internet users even though they only account for four per cent of the overall population. Unfortunately most of the variables suggested above are available only for a limited number of countries.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Box 5. quality is typically a major complaint and often revolves around speed. cited by 63 per cent of respondents.1 30. Students also have a disproportionate share with 28 per cent being Internet users though they represent only 18 per cent of the population.1 Selection of variables In an ideal index. Affordability variables would consist of various ICT service prices in relation to income. the main reason cited for not having Internet access was “No equipment” (57 per cent of respondents). In the Netherlands. In many surveys. In order to do this. ideally from household expenditure surveys. In China. 2002. % 56. affordability was the third largest reason for not having Internet access. The most common reasons given are affordability. an “ideal” index built on this basis would exclude so many countries that its usefulness would be very limited. Internet user surveys were analysed.6 Peru Jamaica Mauritius < High school High school University Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. Educational variables would comprise measurements of the digital literacy of the population. The contrast is similarly striking in developed nations. Quality variables would incorporate objective measurements of the service reliability and speed of networks. speed is the main subject of complaint. In Venezuela the main reason given for not using the Internet is that the respondent does not know how to (27 per cent). 2002. as well as in public locations such as post offices.3: Factors impacting ICT access Although the impact of infrastructure. Quality is also an important issue. the variables for measuring infrastructure would include availability of ICTs in homes. The impact of knowledge on PC and Internet use is striking. At the present time. In Thailand. The influence of knowledge is also reflected in barriers to ICT use questions where a common answer is that the respondent does not know how to use computers. libraries and Internet cafés.5 51. Distribution of educational attainment among Internet users and within overall population. thirty per cent of users are unsatisfied or disappointed with the speed of the Internet. This is borne out in data from Jamaica where the main reason (60 per cent of cases) for not having home Internet access was the lack of a personal computer (PC). Some surveys have questions asking non-users why they do not currently use computers or the Internet. In Mauritius. lack of infrastructure and lack of skills. cited by 19 per cent of respondents. % No computer Cannot afford 60 39 38 32 19 57 China. it is useful to match these assumptions with the reasons people give for not using ICTs.3 45. Box Figure 5.3: Factors impacting ICT access Main reasons for not having Internet access at home.6 Internet user Overall population 12. In China. 104 .

5. The focus on the Internet also has the advantage that it encompasses other ICTs. Although the DAI aims to capture the ability of individuals to access and use ICTs.” While other ICTs such as radio or television may be perceived as more relevant for some developing countries. thereby enhancing transparency. Although infrastructure may be widely available. inclusion of broadcasting statistics would have practically no effect on a country’s relative ranking since there is a direct relation between availability of newer technologies and older ones. knowledge. Much of the discussion behind the information society revolves around the ability of citizens to access information and online business and government services that are delivered over the Internet. Affordability plays a key role in determining users’ digital opportunities. Careful consideration of a few well-thought out variables can suffice to represent ICT access.15 Unfortunately the required indicators are not widely available for most countries. The educational attainment of the adult population (as reflected by literacy statistics) and the number of students both impact ICT take-up. computers are not included in the index but since the vast majority of Internet access is via a computer. In most countries. Pricing cannot be viewed in isolation 105 . they are not included because they currently are not a predominant form of ICT access in most countries. Mobile cellular service is also included in the DAI while cable television is covered when used for Internet access. quality and usage. true levels of literacy are lower. The inclusion of broadcasting variables in the index would have had little relevance for a number of economies and work against inclusiveness by limiting the usefulness of the DAI to a particular group of countries. In others. access to the Internet is an issue in every country. Dial-up Internet access is the prevalent means of Internet access in most countries. With a view to achieving an optimum balance. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX The need for the DAI to be inclusive and intuitively understandable has an impact on the variables selected. For example. This also reinforces the goal that users of the index should understand it easily. fax and data communications. On the other hand.14 ITU has carried out research on development of knowledge indicators for the information society. The variables included are the number of fixed telephone subscribers and mobile cellular subscribers. A NEW. serving as a proxy to some extent for telephone service charges. In any case. The variables to be included in the DAI have been selected as proxies for the categories they represent (Table 5. The knowledge level of a country has a significant impact on the ability to use new technologies. The use of too many variables poses problems in terms of data collection and verification. and as a component of pricing when applicable. the effect of these alternative access networks is largely captured in the quality category described below. While cable television. a case of “quality rather than quantity”. affordability. Affordability is measured by the price of Internet access as a percentage of per capita income. there is a bias towards Internet access. they do not offer the same range and interactivity as telephones or the Internet. Furthermore skills beyond basic literacy are needed to use newer ICTs such as the Internet. telephone service is reflected in both its selection as an infrastructure indicator. The categories and variables have been chosen based on extensive case study research and previous literature on ICT indices. Internet access prices generally reflect the relative prevailing tariffs for other methods of access such as Internet cafés or leased lines. In any case. Internet access prices used in the DAI assume a usage factor of one hour per workday per month. the price of dial-up access (averaged over ten hours of peak time and ten hours of off-peak time) is used since it is often the only method of consumer access or is cheaper than broadband access. it must also be affordable if it is to be used. digital subscriber line (DSL) technology also uses the conventional telephone line. For example. The MDGs also refer to making available “new technologies. the definition of literacy varies widely among nations. where broadband access is growing. There are weaknesses with these indicators. The actual values of the variables used can be presented together with the index. One reason is that access to the Internet is often put forward as a major policy goal. Adult literacy and overall school enrolment—widely available for many countries from international sources—are used as proxies for the capacity of the population to use new ICTs. Fixed and mobile telephones provide the means for voice. leased lines and fixed wireless access paths are important. If broadband prices are cheaper than dial-up then they are used instead. the DAI consists of a selection of eight variables categorized into five areas: infrastructure. Similarly. and can lead to overlap. their availability is captured. The dial-up price would also include telephone usage charges if applicable.1). Research has shown that even among countries with high levels of basic literacy. The infrastructure category contains variables that proxy overall network development.

** = Annual average exchange rates from the International Monetary Fund are used to convert the Internet tariffs to United States dollars. The usage category measures the actual utilization of ICTs. then either people will not use ICTs.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 and the speed of the connection to the Internet affects the price. # = Including Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). Internet users can proxy for the number of computers. This category also allows for greater distinction to be introduced in the index. the variable also incorporates aspects of access not easily captured by the other categories or where additional variables would have been necessary. For example. If the experience is poor because of slow speed. This includes DSL. Affordability 20 hours per month of Internet access* Literacy ^ School enrolment ^ 3. this would be reflected in the number of users. people visit domestic sites so that international bandwidth is not as important as “last mile” bandwidth. GNI per capita data is from the World Bank. The number of broadband subscribers measures this. Quality International Internet bandwidth (Mbit/s) Broadband subscribers # 5. The inclusion of a quality category allows for finer granularity. For example. Fixed telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants 2. The number of Internet users is selected as the usage variable. the major objective is to establish affordability so the cheapest Internet access prices were selected regardless of the speed offered. ^ = Obtained from the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index. * = Cheapest dial-up or broadband plan averaged over 20 hours of peak and 20 hours of off-peak usage. In many developed countries. Table 5. The variables selected for quality are the amount of international Internet bandwidth and the number of broadband subscribers. many developed nations have high values for infrastructure. most Internet access is to sites abroad and therefore the amount of international bandwidth has a major impact on performance. affordability. secondary and tertiary school enrolment level 6. International Internet bandwidth per capita 7. with broadband defined as access technologies faster than 128 kbit/s in at least one direction. Combined primary. However. While usage does to some extent reinforce the impact of other categories its explanatory power for socio-cultural aspects and other variables not included in the DAI more than merit its inclusion. Internet access as percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) per capita ** 4.16 In many developing countries. ~ = BankPopulation data for converting the variables to indicators is obtained from the national statistical agency. or they will not be able to use them effectively and creatively. If a country has many users accessing the Internet from Internet cafés and other public locations. Knowledge 4. cable modem and wireless technologies. The speed factor is also covered by the next category: quality. Source: ITU. The quality category deals with the impact that the experience of using ICTs has on access. cable modem and other technologies faster than 128 kbit/s in at least one direction. a variable is needed to gauge the extent of their utilization. In addition to capturing usage. Usage Internet users Note: § = Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) + Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) subscribers. Internet users per 100 inhabitants 2. education and quality aspects of a country’s ICTs. 106 .1: DAI Indicators Indicators used to construct the DAI Category 1. Given the infrastructure. Adult literacy 5. Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants 3. as well as the prevalence of Internet cafés. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants 8. Infrastructure Variable Fixed telephone subscribers § Mobile cellular subscribers Indicator ~ 1. affordability and education.

The logic behind the weights chosen for multiple indicator categories is described below.e. The cheaper of dial-up or broadband is used. The Internet price data were collected by the ITU during the third quarter of 2003 using information from the largest Internet service provider (ISP) in each country. In other words.5.3 back in 1998. At the same time. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX 5. as technology changes. The highest observed value was 69. where the affordability indicator is negative (e. new ICTs emerge. “Goalposts” (i. One aspect of building an index is ensuring that values for all the variables are included. For example an index designed five years ago most probably would not have included broadband. the index must either assign a value of 1 to the variables or increase the goalpost. As stated above. most Internet access is still via fixed lines. generally by dividing them by the population does this. a process. which transforms the indicators into a value between zero and 1. Normalizing telecommunication variables is more difficult than for other kinds of data since the values change so frequently with technological development. A single index value is computed for each of the five DAI categories. some technologies can reach a peak or go into decline. prices are more than per capita income). A mobidensity of over 100 implies that all adults (and many youth) would have at least one mobile phone. In order to enhance comparability. minimum and maximum values that may be achieved) are used to normalize each country’s data. Also. this is not an issue with the DAI as it uses widely available data. The logic behind this conversion is to create an indicator where a high value is desirable so that it is consistent with the other indicators. some data is not officially collected by some countries. The tariffs are converted to the United States dollar equivalent using the 2002 annual average exchange rate. The affordability category is compiled from the price of twenty hours of monthly Internet access divided by monthly per capita gross national income (GNI). This means that Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) subscribers rather than channels are included. no points are awarded since a person cannot spend more on Internet access than they earn. The GNI per capita income data come from the World Bank. Though this figure has already been exceeded as noted above. The goalpost for mobidensity has been set at 100. Nonetheless.2 Methodological issues The variables selected for the DAI must be made comparable before they are combined. 107 . main telephone lines are defined as fixed telephone subscribers plus payphones. A NEW.17 If the goalpost is surpassed. This was influenced by the objective that countries should be able to achieve a perfect ranking.2 and are further described below. These difficulties have generally been overcome by using reliable secondary source data. a country that does not yet have a mobile cellular network) so this was established as a minimum goalpost. the latest data is not always available.2 and Figure 5. this is mainly due to inactive prepaid accounts and second mobile phones. The goalposts chosen are shown in Table 5.19 National data is used for economies for which World Bank data is not available. since then teledensity has been declining due to mobile substitution as well as less need for second lines due to broadband. In general. it can prove impossible to gather identical. variables such as mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants can now reach levels greater than the total population. so they can be added or averaged. both of which come from the ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. and data for some economies is not available from the standard source. The indicators are then “normalized”. making it difficult to establish longterm goalposts. mobile phones can be used to provide Internet access and this is likely to grow in the future.6. The goalposts for the DAI are designed partly through logic and partly through examining existing values. Teledensity and mobidensity are given equal weight (50 per cent) in computing the infrastructure category value. and incumbent telephone operators.18 The goalpost for teledensity has been set at 60.g. The reason is that even though in most countries there are now more mobile subscribers than fixed telephone lines. fully compatible variables for every single country. It was also assumed that countries could and do start from zero in any variable (e. a situation where the Internet would be free. Subtracting the proportion of monthly income that Internet tariffs consume from 1 creates an affordability indicator. by estimating the latest data based on past years values and using national data when internationally comparable data is not available. The definition of high-speed today could be too slow for applications ten years from now. The goalpost for this indicator is 1. On the other hand. An example showing how the DAI is compiled is given in Box 5.g. The infrastructure category consists of the two indicators main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (teledensity) and mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants (mobidensity). requiring all previous years to be recalculated.3. Care must be taken in choosing the goalposts to avoid the index becoming outdated. Weights must be assigned to each indicator for categories that have multiple indicators. This is done by converting the variables into indicators. At the same time.

The value of 100 has already been reached by two economies: Luxembourg and Taiwan. this would vary among countries. Some people make much more than the average and could afford access. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants 30 International Internet bandwidth per capita 10’000 Internet users per 100 inhabitants 85 Note: Minimum goalposts are always 0. The United Nations Development Programme establishes these values. On the other hand. Source: ITU. a situation where the Internet would be free. This corresponds to 81 per cent of Icelanders aged 12-80.23 Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants 100 Literacy School enrolment Affordability 100 100 1 The goalpost for this indicator is 1. which share the same line. This has since declined to 65. This indicator is computed on a per capita basis but in reality the actual amount of international bandwidth available to an Internet user would be much higher. The highest value for Internet penetration over the entire population occurs in Iceland with a rate of 65. a fairly recent phenomenon as well as replacement of second lines used for Internet access by higher speed alternatives. 108 . It will take some years before the high value for main lines per 100 inhabitants reaches a stable level. China. from people having more than one phone.2: DAI goalposts Maximum values for DAI indicators Indicator Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants Value 60 Note The number of fixed telephone line subscribers has been in decline since 2000. by Sweden in 1998. prices are more than per capita income). where the affordability indicator is negative (e. from non-residents that may take out a mobile subscription in the country they work). This level has already been exceeded in three countries and most notably Denmark. more than ninety per cent of households would have a broadband connection in Korea.22 The highest record value for this indicator was 69.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 5. At a level of 30 per 100 inhabitants. A limit of 100 implies that all adults have at least one mobile phone.3. Mobile phones are a more personal possession than fixed telephone lines that tend to be shared in households or offices. no points are awarded since a person cannot spend more on Internet access than they earn. the Internet is clearly out of the financial reach of most inhabitants.g. Though a lower value might be set at which it might be estimated that all inhabitants that are able to use a mobile phone would have one. A goalpost of 60 implies a very well developed fixed line network.3. where the value is more than twice the goalpost. It seems unlikely therefore that the highest value will ever again be attained. The Republic of Korea leads the world with 21 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants at the end of 2002. Broadband access is still evolving so the penetration limit is unknown. Of course in practice this is not realistic since infants and very young children would not use mobile phones. A goal post of 85 for this indicator implies that all in that age range are using the Internet. Thus there is some duplication (e. Thus it is logical to set a higher threshold. It appears that much of the decline in fixed telephone lines is due to substitution by mobile phones. This level implies that all inhabitants have a mobile phone.g. This translates into a household broadband connection rate of 68 per cent. However when affordability exceeds the average income in the country. Duplication could also arise from delays in administrative records between when a subscriber stops using a subscription on one network and switches to another.

bits. Nordic Information Society Statistics. 2002 (middle left). TeleGeography.04 0. China 75 70 65 60 55 50 1975 120 100 80 60 40 20 DAI goalpost: 100 106. 109 .4 2 9 22 87 81 84 68 71 91 74 94 77 98 80 100 84 74 61 45 46 32 64 51 59 78 62 65 Forecast Number of Internet users in sampled population divided by entire population 1990-1996: Estimates 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. Republic of Korea. 2002 (bottom left). Mobile phones per 100 inhabitants and access to mobile phone at home (age 16-74). 1997-2007 (middle right). 1988-2002 (top right).5. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX Figure 5. Mobile telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants in Taiwan.2: Economies shaping the DAI goalposts Fixed telephone subscribers in Sweden 1975-2002 (top left). International Internet bandwidth in Denmark. Statistics Iceland. bits per second 60'000 50'000 40'000 30'000 20'000 10'000 0 DAI goalpost: 10'000 bits per inhabitant Bits per Internet subscriber in Denmark: 43'712 Bits per inhabitant in Denmark: 20'320 Dial-up connection: 56'000 Internet users per 100 inhabitants in Iceland Sampled population Age: 1997: 16-75 1998: 15-75 1999-02: 12-80 (Surveys not available before 1997) 17 4 . Broadband internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants and 100 households. Nordic countries. 2002. A NEW.15 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Mobile phones in Nordic countries. and Internet users per 100 inhabitants. 2002 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 83 80 Broadband Internet subscribers in the Republic of Korea 94 Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants 89 89 93 84 80 Access to mobile phone at home Age 16-74 85 Denmark Iceland Sweden Norway Finland 100 90 80 68 70 60 50 Per 100 households 40 30 21 20 10 0 1997 98 99 2000 01 02 Forecast DAI Goalpost: 30 Per 100 inhabitants 03 04 05 06 07 International Internet bandwidth in Denmark. Iceland 1990-2008 (bottom right) Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants in Taiwan. China.

The goalpost for broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants Box 5. Therefore. the weights are determined by a principal components analysis. simple statement related to their everyday life. bits per capita and broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. These data are from the UNDP and are used in its Human Development Index (HDI). Rather. Second. If the data were not transformed. The scores are first calculated by simply averaging the categories. This includes what value to assign when the bandwidth is not symmetrical (e. secondary and tertiary schools divided by the population of that school age. These high scores do not imply that the values for individual economies will not change. The robustness of the DAI is tested using several variations on the weighting structure. the value would be close to zero for many developing nations because of the high goalpost.98 between variations 2 and 3. Because the international Internet bandwidth per capita varies tremendously and is arguably more important at initial stages of Internet development—when not much local content is available—the value is transformed using a logarithmic function. a Spearman rank test and Pearson correlation are run over all possible weighting schemes. There are some definitional issues with international Internet bandwidth. the changes will be so slight that they will have no statistically significant effect on the overall rankings of the index. 110 . a considerable amount considering not all of the population will be accessing the Internet at the same time.”20 Overall school enrolment refers to the gross rate and is defined as the number of students in primary.g. Once the scores for each weighting scheme are calculated.96 between variations 2 and 4 and the lowest Spearman coefficient is 0. Essentially. Some countries add the incoming and outgoing bandwidth while others use one or the other. The goalposts (both 100) and weighting (two thirds for literacy and one third for school enrolment) correspond to the HDI methodology. Adult literacy is defined by the UNDP as “The percentage of people aged 15 and above who can. Spearman rank and Pearson correlation tests are statistical tools that can be used to measure how sensitive an index is to changes in category weights. both read and write a short. the most appropriate weighting scheme for the DAI is the method of averaging categories. The lowest Pearson coefficient is 0. The goalpost for bits per capita is set at 10’000. the incoming bandwidth is greater than the outgoing). Lastly.21 Bits per capita are computed by dividing the international Internet bandwidth by the population of the country.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 The knowledge index is computed from the adult literacy rate and the gross school enrolment. This category of countries would tend to have less need for international bandwidth and this will be reflected in a lower score. with understanding. Another point is that international bandwidth may not be as relevant in countries that have a large amount of domestic content. Infrastructure Averages Principal components Variation 1 Variation 2 Variation 3 Variation 4 Variation 5 20% 21% 40% 15% 15% 15% 15% Affordability 20% 19% 15% 40% 15% 15% 15% Knowledge 20% 18% 15% 15% 40% 15% 15% Use 20% 20% 15% 15% 15% 40% 15% Quality 20% 21% 15% 15% 15% 15% 40% The resulting Pearson and Spearman coefficients indicate that all the weighting methods are statistically identical in terms of the overall DAI value. as it is more transparent than more complex schemes. The quality index consists of two indicators. they test whether different weighting scenarios produce overall index values that are statistically different from one another. five variations assign 40 per cent of the weight to one cluster and 15 per cent to each of the remaining categories. both from the World Telecommunication Indicators database. The figure can exceed 100 due to repeaters or those older or younger than the official school age being enrolled.4: Testing the robustness of the DAI The weighting methodology of an index can have a large impact and should be tested to ensure robustness.

Although some surveys compile the number of Internet users from the age of two it seems questionable how many very small children could use the Internet effectively. why is Iceland’s Internet penetration highest in the world when it is not top-ranked in any of the other DAI categories? The individual rankings for economies in this group are close so that a minor change in calculation can shift a country’s ranking a few notches. There is sufficient infrastructure.7 and above). Mobile phone growth has also been rapid and literacy and school enrolment levels are close to those of European Union members.3): • High (0. It connected to the Internet back in 1992 and government sponsored Internet access encouraged many Slovenes to go online in the mid 1990s. Korea is an inspiring message to other countries of how quickly progress can be made in lifting digital access (see Section 5.26 5. The question of at what age the Internet becomes relevant is difficult to answer.4 and Figure 5. The International Monetary Fund classifies them as advanced economies. 111 . The usage index consists of Internet users per 100 inhabitants with the data from the World Telecommunication Indicators database. Economies in this category have achieved a high level of access to digital technologies for a majority of their inhabitants. countries such as Canada.5. The statistical calculations are based on general assumptions that sometimes do not reflect the underlying realities of individual countries.24 The group of high DAI economies is homogenous. First. This often seems be more related to the socialcultural characteristics of the population than any of the DAI factors. ranked fourth in the DAI.4 Results The results of the DAI lend themselves to a particular categorization of economies (Table 5. affinity for technology and top-notch infrastructure. The reason is that it is unrealistic to assume that all inhabitants will use the Internet. The main criterion that distinguishes economies in this category is usage. adversely affecting their score. The majority of indices simply average category scores to obtain an overall index value. This technique has several advantages. the limit of the number of Internet users per 100 inhabitants will vary depending on the age structure of the country. The establishment of a Ministry of Information Society 25 and ongoing liberalization of the telecommunication industry suggest that Slovenia could raise its level of digital access even higher in the years to come. There was an iterative process between the logic of test results and the selection of variables and weighting. The goalpost is set at 85.800. Each indicator is given equal weight in the category. That Central European nation has been an early adopter of technology. This should not be unexpected since Korea was the first nation to launch a third generation mobile network and is the world leader in broadband penetration. The usage category is most susceptible to comparability since Internet user surveys differ in measurement of age ranges and the frequency of use. knowledge levels are high and efforts are being placed on enhancing quality through the provision of faster access. The one exception is Slovenia. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX is set at 30. regardless of the number of variables it contains. Iceland and Norway. For example. almost all emanating from the developed regions of Western Europe. Japan and the United States score relatively low on international Internet bandwidth per capita. it is the most transparent weighting method. Their presence at the top reflects that region’s traditional emphasis on equitable access. the same practice followed by the DAI (i. East Asia and the Pacific. For example. The DAI was also subjected to various statistical tests measuring the weightings and correlation of the variables (Box 5. the Republic of Korea. Also. a value implying that all households would have a connection.5. One reason is that they have extensive domestic content so there is less need for users to access overseas sites. Of note is the select group of five countries that have a DAI value of above 0. Each category receives the same amount of weight in the final calculation. Indices computed this way are easy to decompose and understand for users. prices are affordable. It is worth noting that an equally weighted index causes a high score in one category to compensate for a deficiency in another. Perhaps one surprise is the Republic of Korea. A NEW.2). each category is assigned equal weight of 0. North America. These include four Nordic countries: Sweden. Denmark.4). The value of 85 is an estimate of the average percentage of the worldwide population aged ten and over. The DAI was continually revised and refined throughout the construction process.e.3).

The presence of three least developed countries (LDCs) in this group is notable (Cape Verde. Nations in this group are primarily Latin American and South East Asian. reflected in the affordability category of its DAI. all inhabitants are within walking distance of a telephone.28 This is a competitive collection of countries. This raises Peru’s level of usage. Maldives and Samoa). Countries in this group have achieved an acceptable level of access for a majority of their inhabitants. knowledge levels and good quality infrastructure. Some are eager to accomplish this through ambitious government projects while others are hoping market liberalization will provide the impetus. Tunisia could reach that level when it hosts the second World Summit on the Information Society in 2005. English-speaking population. the Caribbean. This would boost Tunisia’s DAI to just below the upper level. This group of economies have a degree of homogeneity. from half a million at end 2002 to three million by the end of 2006. The Government is hoping that expansion of public access facilities will lift the number of Internet users by a factor of six. The DAI will provide a useful yardstick for measuring their progress over the coming years. • Medium (0. For example “free” Internet access was introduced in Egypt in January 2002. Instead of Internet access provider charges. this is reinforced by European Union trends and ICT objectives for candidate countries.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 • Upper (0. There are also 280 public access facilities. Other upper DAI governments are committed to major ICT projects such as the Dubai Internet City in the United Arab Emirates (the highest ranked nonadvanced. Cape Verde and the Maldives have partly privatized their telecommunication operators resulting in increased effectiveness and access to networks. Most are combining the two. Gulf States and emerging Latin American nations. Many of these nations have a strong interest in ICTs as a development enabler.49). along with some from Africa and the Middle East and North Africa. What these countries need to do is to leverage their infrastructure accomplishments into higher levels of digital access. What often sets this group apart from the high category is imbalance in a specific category.3). In Central and Eastern Europe. It is clear that this is one group where complacency risks falling behind. Other countries in this group are attempting to replicate Peru’s success with mass Internet access. Countries in this category are the poorest in the world and most are LDCs. This includes increasing training and awareness and launching innovative services to tempt a larger portion of the population online. the highest ranked African nation in the DAI). In Tunisia. Their lack of digital access is one more deprivation along with poverty and hunger and shortages of basic human needs such as good . As a result Egypt now has among the lowest Internet access prices in the world. • Low (less than 0. non-European nation in the DAI). all tertiary and secondary schools are connected to the Internet and there are plans to connect all primary ones.69). Peru ranks high despite a relatively low level of infrastructure. Analyzing the separate category values can be useful for policy-makers seeking to find out where their countries are weak in access to the information society. They have a minimal level of access to the information society. users now only pay a nominal rate for dial-up telephone usage.5-0. The explanation is Peru’s high level of Internet access compared to other countries in this group. They are particularly keen about offshore software development and ICT services support which are viewed as complementary to the island states location. Perhaps with an extra effort.3-0. with many aiming to graduate to a higher level of digital readiness. The biggest barrier to higher levels of digital access in this group is a shortage of infrastructure. This is due to the widespread availability of Internet cafés. helping to compensate for low values in other categories. the Multimedia Super Corridor in Malaysia (the highest ranked developing Asian nation in the DAI) and the Cyber City in Mauritius (along with Seychelles. It is positioned between two countries that have twice the level of telephone penetration. They would benefit from greater 112 liberalization of their ICT markets to make them attractive for investors. For the most part the upper DAI group consists of countries from Central and Eastern Europe.27 The potential of ICT industries to generate economic growth is a focus among Caribbean nations. For example some countries in this group may have a high level of infrastructure availability but score low in affordability. In Cape Verde over 90 per cent of the country is covered by mobile cellular whereas in the Maldives.

113 .41 0. While most of the data for the variables are widely available.16 Quality High Upper Medium Knowledge Low High Upper Medium Low Source: ITU. There are three areas where additional work on the DAI would be useful: national indices.1 National DAIs While comparisons between countries will be one of the main purposes of the DAI. notably knowledge. gender disaggregated indices and the construction of time series. Indeed the major factor having an impact on a country’s rank among this group is its level of literacy and school enrolment. there are significant variations among other DAI categories. This suggests that there is significant potential for countries with high knowledge levels if other barriers could be overcome. Conversely. For example.29 Although this group has the common factor of high communication charges. 2002 Countries by DAI category. there are some for which the quality is uncertain. Hopefully. Hence the DAI helps to identify different solutions for these two different countries to raising their level of digital access. 5. it would be in the medium DAI category.5.30 If Zimbabwe had Syria’s level of infrastructure. A NEW. There is little hope of this group joining the information society unless prices are dramatically reduced. the DAI will also generate an improvement in the data. This should be a primary focus of development assistance. One reason is because Zimbabwe has a high knowledge level—its literacy rate is the highest in Africa—preconditions for a higher level of digital access. One problem many countries have is selecting an appropriate indicator to measure internal access to ICTs. this index will be further developed on the basis of comments and inputs from countries and researchers. contrast Syria and Zimbabwe.3: The digital divide through the DAI Average country Digital Access Index (DAI) value by DAI classification and category. This includes the number of Internet users that is not based on surveys for around half the countries. The DAI can identify internal digital divides so Figure 5. two of the highest ranked economies of this group. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX shelter. 5. 2003 Average DAI value for group Infrastructure 0.5. a factor that almost all countries in this group have in common is relatively high access prices. As it is still in its infancy. We envision that this feedback will help ITU to optimize the usefulness of the index. an hour a day of Internet access exceeds the average daily income. In most nations in this group. clean water and adequate health care. Apart from low levels of communication infrastructure.5 Future work The DAI has been presented as an initial attempt to create a transparent way of measuring access to newer ICTs. particularly since greater use of ICTs in these countries could help achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (see Chapter four).58 40 25 58 55 Usage Affordability 0. if Syria had Zimbabwe’s literacy level and Internet penetration.77 0. Zimbabwe’s Internet penetration is more than three times higher than Syria’s. the index can equally be used to measure the level of access within a nation. it too would be in the medium category.

DAI indicators or reasonable proxies are available at a provincial level except international Internet bandwidth. national backbone speeds are uniform so the bandwidth would be the same. The main limitation is that the data set is not consistent across time. mobile subscribers and Internet users from November 2000 and the other indicators from 1998. In some countries. In many cases. As mentioned throughout the report. there is no such data for prepaid subscribers. Traffic is then distributed via local networks to their destination. This is due to the widespread popularity of prepaid cards. 5. This would suggest that efforts should be devoted to enhancing infrastructure in Chile’s remote provinces. Few countries today have all of the data needed to carry out such analysis. More difficult is a regional measure of international Internet bandwidth. data could not be obtained on the regional distribution of bandwidth. This is because in many countries. However this is often not carried out on a regular basis. Thus the concept 114 of international bandwidth is not so logical in a regional sense. The main reason for the discrepancy is infrastructure (including broadband Internet access) rather than affordability or knowledge. While the number of prepaid subscribers can be ascertained at a country level this is practically impossible at the provincial level. This is the case of Chile where a nationwide survey with data disaggregated at a regional level was carried out in November 2000 but has not been updated since. A proxy might be the amount of national bandwidth available at the regional level. regional incomes are usually computed on a household income basis as is the case in Chile. Internet access prices are not always uniform nationwide. The difference between the highest DAI value—in the capital Santiago—and the lowest — in Araucanía in Region 9— is 28 per cent (Figure 5. income and gender. they are not glaring. The results indicate that though there are variations in the DAI across Chile’s regions. Like main lines.2 A gender disaggregated DAI Just as the DAI can be disaggregated at a regional level within a country. This has been done in Chile at both the individual and household level but the survey is not carried out on an annual basis. it is important to have .5. broadband subscriptions can be derived from administrative records at a regional level as is the case of Chile. nine provincial capitals and the national capital are linked by a 155 Mbps fibre optic asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) backbone. such as Chile publish most of the needed indicators on a disaggregated national level that can be used to calculate a DAI sub-index for its 13 regions. To summarize the Chilean situation. Other countries may carry out surveys but not on an annual basis. In Chile. The other provinces use slower speed satellite connection. it could theoretically be split along other characteristics such as age. Thus while administrative records exist for subscription-based subscribers in Chile. In the case of Chile. Some. This is because prepaid cards do not require a subscription so the residence of the purchaser is unknown. A proxy could be obtained from surveys by querying respondents about whether they have a mobile subscription. Although Chile has several domestic fibre optic and satellite networks. international Internet gateways only exist in a few locations. many countries have a breakdown of main telephone lines by region. many developing nations do not carry out Internet surveys and therefore do not have disaggregated provincial-level data. In terms of infrastructure. However the availability of disaggregated mobile cellular subscribers is more problematic.4).32 Quality indicators also pose a challenge. With regards to gender.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 that priority can be focussed on underserved areas to promote equitable nationwide access. these are not an ideal proxy because of the variations that can exist between the number of subscriptions and actual users. Another challenge is the computation of regional affordability. The UNDP has carried out national human development reports for a number of countries where these data are available.31 Calculating regional DAIs uncovers a number of challenges. Another challenge is to obtain per capita GNI on a regional basis. the absence of points of presence (POPs) and lack of nationwide calling numbers can mean that those in rural areas pay long distance calling charges for Internet access. Knowledge indicators can also be difficult to obtain. It is nonetheless possible to derive regional indices since the data are from the same date for all provinces with the caveat that this would not be comparable to Chile’s actual country level DAI and hence to other countries. Internet tariffs can also vary because the same ISPs may not operate nationally. Though Internet subscriptions by province are sometimes available. Instead. disaggregated indicators for adult literacy and school enrolment at the regional level are available from the UNDP for 1998. The indicators on main telephone lines and broadband subscriptions are from December 2002.

88 0.78 Norway USA Iceland Netherlands Japan Korea (Rep. affordability. A gender-disaggregated index was then calculated for the resulting top ten ranked economies. A NEW. Figure 5.0 Infrastructure Affordability Knowledge Quality Usage Note: See text for modifications to DAI necessary for a regional index for Chile. knowledge and usage).90 0.82 0.84 0. 2002 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.92 GDAI 0.0 I II III IV V R. Source: ITU.8 0. VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Chile 0.2 0.86 0.80 0. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX Figure 5. Note: 115 .9 1.) Denmark Sweden Canada Finland DAI The DAI was reconstructed along the same categories as those used for the gender-disaggregated version (i.4: National DAI DAI in Chile’s regions. Source: ITU.e.5.1 0.M.5: A gender modified DAI Gender-disaggregated Digital Access Index (GDAI) 0.3 0.

Comparable data for 1998 have been obtained for 40 economies covering most developed and major developing nations. Some indicators do not lend themselves to clear gender delineation. China was next. The major problem is data availability. The most striking development is the improvement of Asian economies particularly the Republic of Korea and Taiwan. 5. Trying to create gender-disaggregated data for this category of indicators would therefore be contrary to their purpose. making comparisons difficult. For example. One drawback is that time series for Internet access prices and international Internet bandwidth are lacking for many countries. illustrating how rapid technological diffusion has been (Figure 5. When the former are available. moving up 13 places. These indicators can be used to create a gender subindex: affordability. The main criterion is the availability of roads rather than who is using them. Thus three of five DAI categories (excluding infrastructure and quality) can be calculated along gender lines. Despite the short time span of four years (1998 compared to 2002) there were noteworthy differences in relative DAI rankings. Infrastructure data such as fixed. they often have not been calculated using the same methodology as the DAI.5). Taiwan. In any case their inclusion in the DAI was meant to show the availability of infrastructure rather than how it is used. it is also insightful to extend the index into the past to analyse the historical performance of countries.5.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 an understanding of the level of access between males and females (Box 5. China’s jump shows the effect of telecommunication liberalization. These three languages make up eleven per cent of Internet content a higher figure than either French or Spanish. Indeed one observation from the Asian economies that have improved their rankings is the growth of digital content. particularly in the mobile sector. Parts of the DAI do lend themselves to disaggregation by gender. These proxies do not always support the strict purpose of the DAI but nonetheless would give a more complete picture of female access to ICTs (Table 5. particularly for Internet users disaggregated by gender. It is much like measuring a country’s transport network. moving up 20 places among the 40 economies examined. Taiwan. Korean and Japanese.3 DAI over time One of the most important uses for the DAI will be to measure progress over time. A gender sub-index has been calculated for selected economies to illustrate the possibilities (Figure 5.6). mobile telephone and broadband subscriptions are obtained from administrative records and are not available on a gender disaggregated basis. knowledge and usage. China. This may mark a turning point in the internationalisation of ICTs with English becoming less of an advantage than it was in the past. Several predominantly Anglophone nations dropped in the rankings.3). The Republic of Korea improved its rank the most. 33 The results show that there is not always a relationship between a country’s DAI result and equity in access. In addition. Another possibility is to design a modified DAI using proxies for the indicators.5). The development of local content in nonLatin scripts. such as Chinese. While monitoring future change is important. moving the economy to the number one position in the world in terms of penetration. Korea’s rapid progress reflects strong government commitment to ICTs with the payoff noticeable in high levels of broadband connectivity and Internet usage. per capita income is available by gender. One limitation is data availability. has progressed at a fast pace.37 116 . fixed telephones are typically shared in offices or homes and not “owned” by a specific person. Another issue is conceptual. This includes social indicators such literacy and school enrolment as well as the Internet users in the usage category.

When compared to developed European nations this is impressive (Box Figure 5. selected economies.3 Less than high school 21.8 per cent of the population. A comparison of the difference between GDI and HDI ranks shows that Thailand performs better in gender (+2) compared to countries such as Luxembourg (-3). and the high proportion of women working point to an important factor leading to the high numbers of Thai women on the Internet. There is also a close link between education—the number of students a country has or the educational level of its population—and Internet use. impediments to usage. Unlike other countries. the community.7 High school University Note: In the left chart.0 62. there are also no social barriers preventing Thai women going online from places such as Internet cafés.3 31. However this lead is dissipating and already there are slightly more college-educated women than men (Box Figure 5.0 6. 2000. affordable access. a different picture emerges.3 Female Among Internet users 7. 2002 (left) and educational attainment by sex. for example. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX Box 5. women contribute significantly to the country’s economy.5: Thai Women Online A glance at Internet penetration shows that the gap between developing and developed nations is substantial. if the data is gender disaggregated. for instance.2 Male 70. Thai women are encouraged to participate in the economic well being of the family unit.4 -1 26. The Internet in Thailand is mainly accessed from either the household or work and men and women log on in almost exactly the same proportions from these locations. High Internet use from the place of work. National Statistical Office — Thailand.5. In the right chart. Males have a slight advantage in the overall educational level of the population with around a three per cent higher rate in literacy. right). What makes the measurement of such factors imperative is that average education or income levels assume gender neutrality. Source: ITU adapted from national Internet surveys. 2000 (right) Women online as percentage of total Internet users. Delving deeper into the causes behind the relatively high figure for female Thai Internet users highlights a number of factors.8 million Internet users in 2002 – a mere 7. Education. the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has calculated a gender-related development index (GDI) out of its popular human development index (HDI). It allows women to participate in the decision-making process within the family. at work and in the political arena.5. Within the household. etc. Women’s ability to take advantage of ICTs is dependent upon a number of cultural and structural factors.5. For example. In Thailand. educational attainment refers to population age 6 and over. and have thus worked alongside men. left). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). the Netherlands (-2) and Spain (-1). Gender disaggregated school enrolment figures show that more women than men enrol in secondary and tertiary institutions. had 4.5: Thai Women Online Women online as a percentage of total Internet users. Thailand. National Electronics and Computer Technology Center — Thailand (NECTEC). Thai women wield a significant amount of economic power and have historically controlled family finance. Thailand. However. 117 . A NEW. Thai women account for 45 per cent of the total Internet users in the country. % 66. Female labour force participation in Thailand stands at an astounding 73 per cent as compared to the figure for the United States — 59 per cent. 2002 HDI rank minus GDI rank 43 42 39 -2 -2 -3 Switzerland Netherlands Luxembourg Spain Thailand 42 45 +2 Educational attainment in Thailand.9 8.34 Because they are encouraged to contribute to the economic well being of the family unit. Box Figure 5. such as education. is essential for gender equality. HDI = UNDP Human Development Index and GDI = UNDP Gender-related Development Index. opportunities for females improve as they move up the educational ladder.

61 +4 +5 +6 0.66 DAI 1998 -5 0.36 There is scarce research on access or usage of international Internet bandwidth by gender.81 0.60 -8 0.) 0.78 0.55 Korea (Rep.7 -5 0.8 0. A number of countries have compiled this statistic through surveys.77 0.0 0. selected economies DAI.75 0.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 5.3: Substitutes of DAI indicators for gender analysis DAI indicator Main telephone per 100 inhabitants Substitute gender indicator Not available Note Available data suggest that women tend to use fixed telephones more than men.56 0. 118 . UNDP provides literacy and school enrolment data disaggregated by gender.9 DAI 2002 Change in rank relative to 40 economies 0.66 -9 0. Singapore has compiled this statistic through a survey. China 0.61 -3 0.59 +13 +20 0. 1998 and 2002. Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants Internet access tariffs as % of GDP per capita Adult literacy School enrolment Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants International Internet bandwidth per capita Internet users per 100 inhabitants Percentage of females with access to mobile phone at home Internet access tariffs as % of female estimated earned income Female adult literacy rate Female overall school enrolment ratio Percentage of female broadband Internet users Not available Percentage of females using the Internet Source: ITU.74 0.5 New Zealand Australia United States Canada United Kingdom Japan Singapore Source: ITU.56 Hong Kong.35 However there is scarce research on female access to fixed telephone lines.58 0. China Taiwan. A number of countries compile this statistic in national Internet user surveys.72 0. Figure 5.6: Reversal of fortune DAI values in 1998 and 2002.75 0.79 0.6 0.78 0. selected economies 1.77 0. UNDP provides income data disaggregated by gender.

Value 6’786’100 US$ 24’750 (2’063 month) 7.2) + (0. Infrastructure The goalpost for fixed telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants is 60: 56. The goalpost for broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants is 30: 14.(0.6 2’918’800 43.46 = 0.5 / 100 = 0.68.24 = 0.6: Compiling the Digital Access Index The following example shows how the Digital Access Index (DAI) is compiled for Hong Kong.2) + (0. China 2002 Indicator Population Gross National Income (GNI) per capita in United States dollars (US$) Annual average exchange rate (Hong Kong Dollar (HK$) to one (US$) Fixed telephone subscribers Fixed telephone subscribers per 100 inhab.92.92 x (1/2) = 0. exchange rates. 6 / 60 = 0.2998). GNI per capita. Each indicator is weighed equally: 0. Quality The goalpost for bits per capita is 10’000.38 As for other economies.47 + 0. C&SD. DAI The Digital Access Index is the average of the five categories above: (0.998.93. Population and Internet usage statistics are from the national statistical agency. World Bank.49.0 / 85 = 0. Literacy is given two-thirds weight and enrolment one third: 0.(US$ 3. The goalpost for mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants is 100: 91. Because of the extreme range among economies and the fact that international bandwidth is more critical at early stages of development. Affordability Affordability indicator: 1 .93 x 0.998 x 0. Mobile cellular subscribers Mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants 20 hours Internet access per month Adult literacy (age 15 and over) Combined school enrolment (gross primary.2) + (0. Source: OFTA. China. logarithms are used to transform the values: (LOG (1’866.8) – LOG (0.01)) / (LOG (10’000) – LOG (0.94 x (1/2) + 0. literacy and school enrolment are from international sources.935 and 63 / 100 = 0.(20 hours of Internet access / Monthly GNI * 100) = 1 . The Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) provided all ICT infrastructure data. UNDP. A NEW. The goalpost for affordability is 0.85) 93. IMF.2998 / 100) = 0.79.6 6’218’984 91.44 + 0.88 x (1/2) + 0.8 989’115 14. i-Cable.51 x 0.5 63 12’668 Mbps 1’866.49 x (1/2) = 0.80 3’841’787 56. Hong Kong is a role model for data availability with all of these indicators freely available on the OFTA.63.51.0 DAI data for Hong Kong.01)) = 0.6 HK$ 30 (US$ 3.935 x (2/3) + 0. the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD).5.85 / US$ 2’063 = 0.2) + (0.6 / 100 = 0. secondary and tertiary) International Internet bandwidth Bits per capita Broadband subscribers Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants Internet users Internet users per 100 inhabitants Each indicator is weighed equally: 0.63 x (1/3) = 0. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX Box 5. Knowledge The goalpost for literacy and enrolment is 10039 : 93. Usage The goalpost for Internet users per 100 inhabitants is 85: 43.83 x 0.83. 119 . The Internet access prices are from i-Cable.94.68 x 0. C&SD and i-Cable websites.2) = 0.88.6 / 30 = 0.1 : 1 .

9 14.5 98.86 0.13 0.66 0.4 53.9 8'121.98 0.1 44.05 0.0 80.64 0.96 0.29 0.98 0.7 8.4 48.2 99.68 0.48 0.89 0.9 41.99 0.0 1.43 0.93 0.62 0. 100 inhab.31 0.9 51.57 0.7 213.86 0.12 0.39 0.0 0.47 0.94 0.66 0.78 0.2 163.7 53.4 98.67 0.8 97.3 23.0 29.93 0.3 54.2 0.92 0.6 359.72 0.63 0.2 8.74 0.2 56.36 0.1 22.8 47.77 0.96 0.6 99.4 48.30 0.4 20.4 11.83 0.4 37.1 1'048.98 0.5 97.7 91.75 0.99 0.79 0.6 6.3 51.47 0.38 0.44 0.0 0.5 96.0 0.62 0.38 0.88 0.3 53.9 99.5 98.17 0.0 0.83 0.25 0.4 63.0 7.0 23.32 0.4 34.6 26.2 33.42 0.9 7.5 67.9 36.6 14.3 16.3 0.6 3'155.99 0.60 0.5 97.9 19.5 4'981.3 58.17 0.1 62.8 3.0 0.94 0.84 0.5 3.8 32.89 0.8 17.0 44.8 0.9 2.5 2.4 31.91 0.99 0.56 0.50 0.6 91.3 41.8 38.51 0.99 0.5 11.2 32.60 0.0 96.2 48.3 53.3 70.4 35.8 19.9 1.7 47.75 0.66 0.95 0.69 0.4 57.1 27.21 0.92 0.79 0.19 0.97 0.4 28.33 0.KNOW.50 0.96 0.9 72.99 0.79 0.0 47.83 0.7 87.96 0.5 91.FORSTRUC DABI.5 76.8 2.0 23.3 54.6 4.93 0.51 0.96 0.2 9.0 0.50 0.8 94.99 0.2 2.63 0.99 0.) Norway Netherlands Hong Kong.25 0. Mobile sub.5 64.9 4.8 0.9 72.5 56.3 464.83 0.99 0.46 0.7 31.3 80.6 39.3 9.3 92. China Hungary Bahamas Bahrain St.1 170.90 0.6 5'402.41 0.96 0.7 40.83 0.38 0.0 0.8 3'185.0 0.8 539.32 0.3 0.3 4.4 1.6 50.5 99.99 0.5 40.5 1'866.4 6.9 13.5 6.3 0.5 98.1 28.9 83.69 0.76 0.3 50.55 0.6 30.6 84.7 26.5 99.4: DAI results Economy HIGH Sweden Denmark Iceland Korea (Rep.7 92.8 8.7 3'434.70 0.60 0. lines p.53 0.8 15.31 0.99 0.96 0.4 96.2 131.8 99.1 98.5 36.7 67.2 39.3 98.79 0.99 0.98 0.7 5.3 20.5 3.6 14.45 0.97 0.4 79.4 409.8 2.99 0.3 55.2 339.7 37.45 0.6 40.75 0.35 0.96 0.4 584.9 62.1 29.3 99.9 236.95 0.5 98.74 0.8 1. Internet users p.52 0.50 0.9 45.29 0.44 0.7 47.6 2'841.34 0.7 3.74 0.10 0.7 292.0 4.9 25.6 0.2 25.9 3.73 0.53 0.44 0.1 6.3 0.9 50.0 0.6 14.1 1.99 0.5 1.4 2'189.99 1.94 0.0 20.29 0.79 0.10 0.64 0.78 0.32 0.59 0.99 0.75 0.0 15.0 78.5 0.60 0.5 99.43 0.9 7.45 0.2 0.72 0.97 0.74 0.97 0.0 0.0 43.7 83.3 1.94 0.94 0.50 120 .95 0.9 53.65 0.39 0.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 5.6 0.7 2.41 0.91 0.2 92.1 489.47 0.19 0.0 25.1 0.36 0.8 3.8 1.99 0.4 2.0 23.7 4'421.46 0. China Canada United States United Kingdom Switzerland Singapore Japan Luxembourg Austria Germany Australia Belgium New Zealand Italy France Slovenia Israel UPPER Ireland Cyprus Estonia Spain Malta Czech Republic Greece Portugal United Arab Emirates Macao.76 0.14 0.93 0.2 20'284.52 0.7 0.8 1.1 19.78 0.2 149.89 0.4 1.84 0.69 0.6 27.1 6.8 8.76 0.1 0.99 0.70 0.31 0.5 87.72 0.5 87.99 0.72 0.7 1.93 0.98 0.9 6.56 0.54 0.0 37.3 31.9 25.6 8.5 99.6 95.84 0.51 0.99 0.0 0.0 18.3 13.1 28.3 95.12 0.0 93.98 0.99 0.96 0.2 53.13 0.40 0.7 93.75 0.15 0.3 10.98 0.7 64.1 6.74 0.6 5.59 0.12 0.88 0. Kitts and Nevis Poland Slovak Republic Croatia Chile Antigua & Barbuda Barbados Malaysia Lithuania Qatar Brunei Darussalam Latvia Uruguay Seychelles Dominica Argentina Trinidad & Tobago Bulgaria Jamaica Costa Rica St.56 0.6 128.9 84.27 0.2 64.57 0.82 0.81 0.77 0.23 0.67 0.7 21.6 73. China Finland Taiwan.9 97.34 0.99 0.68 0.34 0.42 0.6 91.4 94.7 28.90 0.76 0.96 0.53 0.4 37.1 17.47 0.96 0.6 10'327.80 0.0 0.9 2.2 1.25 0.9 75.95 0.3 74.80 0.2 0. 100 inhab.99 0.5 98.30 0.3 4.0 14.1 222.5 99. AFINFRA.5 92.33 0.9 25.86 0.6 81.2 4.9 78.35 0.99 0.2 1.23 0.5 0.21 0.58 0.79 0.2 51.4 61.2 21.0 16.35 0.3 51.0 237.8 98.0 24.97 0.4 95.1 1.92 0.2 20.55 0.88 0.6 62.1 6.38 0.74 0.QUALTURE LITY LEDGE ITY USAGE DAI 65.48 0.5 98.9 13.93 0.7 34.6 22.28 0.78 0.37 0.1 42.0 0.2 90.8 8'991.0 98.5 9.0 50.7 100.59 0.43 0.3 83.86 0.5 181.16 0. Lucia Kuwait Grenada Mauritius Russia Mexico Brazil Sub.87 0.89 0.55 0.54 0.0 4.50 0.89 0.13 0.96 0.2 82.0 0.30 0.2 6.79 0.3 21.57 0.26 0.9 19.2 24.2 34.9 84.75 0.31 0.67 0.25 0.5 76.7 42.8 39.9 55.7 1'414.7 0.88 0.9 1.8 33.49 0.9 99.9 1.89 0.6 4.2 10.7 90.0 8.54 0.99 0.8 533.71 0.81 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 28.5 11.9 98.99 0.96 0.64 0.95 0.99 0.3 3.81 0.93 0.59 0.54 0.12 0.6 11.00 0.9 1.57 0.7 1.4 1.99 0.99 0.98 0.6 46.3 57.60 0.8 32.98 0.96 0.4 32.2 36.8 27.4 40.7 0.5 26.5 98.5 6.2 0.86 0.97 0.9 84.74 0.64 0.4 3.54 0.0 58.2 47. 100 inhab.65 0.99 0.7 46.5 98.3 5.35 0.95 0.60 0.2 0.36 0.61 0.8 97.8 10.73 0.36 0.9 39.0 36.94 0.83 0.9 4.5 65.46 0.4 42.59 0.23 0.59 0.64 0.43 0.4 87.79 0.6 1'112.41 0.50 0.37 0.1 1.65 0.52 0.85 0.6 43.41 0.48 0.60 0.6 1'516.51 0.8 3'269.5 42.18 0.5 0.7 0.34 0.27 0.72 0.55 0.28 0.91 0.4 51.1 2.2 50.9 86.7 0.5 658.6 52.4 0.0 386.1 0.99 0.1 32.9 38.39 0.1 9.5 236.87 0.9 48.66 0.1 69.0 4.1 8.45 0.16 0.32 0.0 7.50 0.5 97. Internet tariff as % Adult of GNI literacy School enrolment Int'l Internet bandwidth P.51 0.1 17.8 1'323.37 0.8 25.3 33.1 61.5 52.9 1.7 105.5 8.3 113 98 91 91 98 99 63 103 93 94 94 112 88 75 83 73 92 89 114 107 99 82 91 83 90 91 74 89 92 76 76 81 93 67 55 82 74 81 70 88 73 68 76 69 89 72 85 81 83 86 84 79 65 89 67 77 74 66 82 54 63 69 82 74 95 10'611.33 0.7 3'271.61 0.3 11.1 0.17 0.87 0. 100 inhab.6 43.1 0.99 0.1 30.5 361.94 0.3 65.87 0.26 0.0 98.42 0.5 95.8 3.5 19.86 0.94 0.2 50.0 53.1 2.54 0.1 0.32 0.2 57.67 0.96 0.9 2.35 0. 100 inhab.56 0.7 91.12 0.2 0.35 0.8 11.9 12.53 0.0 41.58 0.6 99.9 11.0 98.5 81.8 12. Broadband subscribers p.2 30.1 1.64 0.3 95.54 0.28 0.4 35.44 0.1 4.0 114.3 16.4 19.3 26.0 26.92 0.6 15.96 0. p.78 0.7 391.8 99.94 0.45 0.31 0.98 0.94 0.49 0.0 0.94 0.8 254.53 0.7 1'179.5 99.89 0.4 45.4 52.99 0.98 0.96 0.32 0.32 0.81 0.0 2.53 0.5 99.35 0.4 84.5 98.72 0.43 0.5 11.3 88.18 0.97 0.99 0.82 0.86 0.4 55.99 0.5 106.27 0.5 1.

85 0.70 0.48 0.19 0.0 0.5 21.2 10.63 0.6 6.0 0.9 85.74 0.14 0.72 0.8 55.26 0.2 1.06 0.5 86 76 72 68 60 70 75 68 76 58 64 77 78 71 77 52 58 83 64 76 80 64 81 84 80 58 79 89 74 76 72 78 76 80 69 64 74 57 64 77 63 84 76 71 71 81 69 77 61 64 64 83 51 56 79 76 64 60 4.0 0.1 2.45 0.6 98.88 0.22 0.04 0.3 22.9 4.0 0.48 0.1 13.4 26.38 0.77 0.43 0.65 0.19 0.9 10.0 96.2 78.94 0.3 3.87 0.9 17.80 0.2 11.1 12.45 0.8 3.1 9.5 95.7 19.23 0.77 0.39 0.4 4.8 98.0 0.0 0.3 27.2 12.2 1.33 0.4 5.1 5.8 10.2 18.04 0.10 0.7 9.3 8.79 0.0 0.1 91.9 33.0 8.17 0.2 9.26 0.0 0.6 0.82 0.7 21.11 0.28 0.0 0.29 0.4 68.22 0.18 0. p.12 0. Vincent Bosnia Suriname South Africa Colombia Jordan Serbia & Montenegro Saudi Arabia Peru China Fiji Botswana Iran (I.2 89.85 0.0 2.20 0.0 11.38 0.13 0.0 1. Internet users p.5 21.6 0.9 45.4 27.2 91.0 53.0 0.30 121 .1 5.84 0.11 0.91 0.4 56.5 15.06 0.9 93.9 19.18 0.43 0.31 0.1 27.85 0.8 93.91 0.31 0. Tunisia Ecuador Kazakhstan Egypt Cape Verde Albania Paraguay Namibia Guatemala El Salvador Palestine Sri Lanka Bolivia Cuba Samoa Algeria Turkmenistan Georgia Swaziland Moldova Mongolia Indonesia Gabon Morocco India Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Viet Nam Armenia Sub.3 10.74 0.39 0.7 5.9 6.96 0.46 0.25 0.1 74.0 0.6 20.3 4.0 0.79 0.0 0.0 11.3 181.45 0.23 0.9 2.5 6.1 10.77 0.54 0.22 0.84 0.1 8.0 49.2 1.40 0.0 7.62 0.80 0.3 19.46 0.6 0.8 5.6 24.0 0.35 0.02 0.0 0.90 0.03 0.0 99.00 0.4 18.4 6.37 0.8 32.1 25.5 1.8 3.3 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.94 0.8 93.6 16.02 0.8 4.0 0. Mobile sub.23 0.4: DAI results (cont’d) Economy MEDIUM Belarus Lebanon Thailand Romania Turkey TFYR Macedonia Panama Venezuela Belize St.22 0.32 0.7 26.57 0.6 6.88 0.2 0.49 0.4 2.8 21.91 0.6 48.1 4.90 0.0 0.70 0.03 0.37 0.0 29.7 21.05 0.5 25.1 4.4 12.0 0.1 1.9 28.6 0.0 0.79 0.6 22.89 0.1 3.38 0.2 8.03 0.22 0.9 5.11 0.43 0.0 0.1 3.27 0.07 0.FORSTRUC DABI.22 0.04 0.88 0.3 22.51 0.05 0.86 0.43 0.42 0.11 0.1 6.9 10.88 0.5 15.16 0.15 0.7 6.2 79.7 13.8 1.43 0.3 11.2 92.6 16.44 0.6 2.4 1.12 0.2 4.9 7.0 6.88 0. 100 inhab.24 0.96 0.2 4.0 0.89 0.9 12.7 23.43 0.13 0.24 0.0 5.22 0.8 4.7 2.23 0.0 99.80 0.3 0.9 17.75 0. Internet tariff as % Adult of GNI literacy School enrolment Int'l Internet bandwidth P.20 0.73 0.0 97.5 0.4 6.87 0.37 0.06 0.96 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.4 10.6 3.1 3.7 23.2 1.19 0.04 0.1 4.8 2.02 0.7 16.0 0.18 0.47 0.9 86.3 4.2 12.3 1.02 0.0 7.85 0.31 0.04 0.09 0.0 97.83 0.16 0.90 0.2 4.38 0.67 0.8 98.4 17.5 1.88 0.10 0.3 99.06 0.17 0.7 13.26 0.80 0.7 8.31 0.92 0.0 11.0 0.23 0.26 0.0 0. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX Table 5.34 0.85 0.7 4.7 98.43 0.3 4.7 2.5 1.72 0.7 7.4 10.6 10.05 0.KNOW.8 29.7 11.5 18.1 7.6 37.83 0.0 0.1 99.1 0.0 1.0 92.1 5.1 0.27 0.70 0.79 0.2 6.13 0.9 6.87 0.01 0.2 25.5 20.7 6.02 0.4 21.32 0.16 0.86 0.24 0.63 0.22 0.8 24.16 0.7 7.04 0.) Ukraine Guyana Philippines Oman Maldives Libya Dominican Rep.05 0.0 1.0 0.28 0. Broadband subscribers p.4 9.1 0.2 210.41 0.8 2.0 0.26 0.6 5.16 0.8 14.9 19.06 0.02 0.90 0.8 14.73 0.31 0.7 77.06 0.03 0.6 16. 100 inhab.08 0.1 0.4 23.3 12.03 0. 100 inhab.93 0.8 34.83 0.05 0.9 0.0 98.45 0.41 0.87 0.95 0.15 0.1 77.69 0.0 0.0 46.21 0.5 11.9 0.01 0.1 14.8 9.6 95.0 22.79 0.5 72.22 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.R.1 0.9 19.36 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.20 0.37 0.85 0.93 0.02 0.0 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.82 0.77 0.9 17.8 8.34 0.39 0.29 0.39 0.8 99.0 0.2 16.25 0.14 0.28 0.21 0. lines p.95 0.27 0.43 0.4 24.3 0.9 10.39 0.9 1.4 12.4 22.4 8.5 87.80 0.7 8.2 85.6 10.1 7.46 0.04 0.1 3.6 4.2 11.5 17.4 6.25 0. A NEW.0 1.2 10.0 0.3 18.50 0.19 0.9 25.27 0.5 28.41 0.0 72.89 0.45 0.75 0.1 10.84 0. 100 inhab.9 90.QUALTURE LITY LEDGE ITY USAGE DAI 29.1 14.02 0.53 0.25 0.3 4.0 80.22 0.83 0.32 0.5 7.44 0.23 0.1 90.05 0.07 0.0 100.3 3.24 0.6 46.23 0.4 20.38 0.9 3.88 0.4 13.6 5.9 27.6 3.3 93.4 9.26 0.9 6.17 0.27 0.79 0.86 0.48 0.27 0.29 0.47 0.89 0.89 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.6 17.1 3.8 29.48 0.1 12.3 71.4 11.74 0.8 36.0 80.7 69.00 0.0 0.9 4.05 0.7 3.04 0.86 0. AFINFRA.6 7.3 9.2 6.8 4.06 0.6 9.14 0.6 3.7 86.3 3.0 85.7 98.08 0.32 0.11 0.82 0.92 0.78 0.7 67.3 4.5.23 0.3 8.0 0.19 0.2 6.64 0.09 0.9 25.4 1.8 30.0 0.4 17.27 0.4 88.37 0.7 26.06 0.3 91.2 1.2 12.09 0.0 0.3 10.7 2.7 12.81 0.1 7.9 54.3 17.37 0.24 0.1 5.25 0.8 1.06 0.6 7.46 0.91 0.13 0.6 11.0 0.6 15.1 10.02 0.96 0.32 0.42 0.6 6.2 0.8 58.0 49.8 37.3 4.5 82.74 0.5 3.9 11.89 0.9 1.50 0.38 0.8 84.26 0.73 0.06 0.43 0.82 0.1 92.6 91.7 11.0 4.1 73.4 12.5 94.8 20.0 2.79 0.70 0.5 13.7 5.04 0.0 0.8 17.68 0.83 0.7 8.86 0.71 0.7 22.14 0.0 0.03 0.2 1.2 4.4 11.0 94.33 0.25 0.81 0.06 0.36 0.1 1.05 0. 100 inhab.24 0.5 9.18 0.07 0.4 4.8 6.0 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.8 4.3 87.0 0.5 5.5 21.48 0.0 32.2 14.96 0.78 0.0 16.12 0.07 0.1 0.5 29.47 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.46 0.2 26.07 0.02 0.7 6.0 2.90 0.02 0.2 85.4 7.9 18.

4 118.00 0.00 0.51 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.2 26.00 0.01 0.6 1.8 2.13 0.41 0.R.14 0.12 0.13 0.03 0.0 36.2 0.10 0.00 0.2 185. Mobile sub.2 0.14 0.2 1.0 48.10 0.0 0.3 0.00 0.3 64.8 12.15 0.40 0.55 0.0 0.51 0.1 0.16 0.01 0.0 0.0 67.9 986.69 0.7 289.64 0.15 0.7 0.3 0.01 0.01 0.2 40.11 0.0 0.0 0.13 0. Internet tariff as % Adult of GNI literacy School enrolment Int'l Internet bandwidth P.1 200.5 1.00 0.8 75.0 83.1 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.8 47.3 37.11 0.0 0.15 0.01 0. Broadband subscribers p.5 683.17 0.7 62.00 0.00 0.4 0.3 0.75 0.9 40.8 2. Tomé & Principe Tajikistan Equatorial Guinea Kenya Nicaragua Lesotho Nepal Bangladesh Yemen Togo Solomon Islands Cambodia Uganda Zambia Myanmar Congo Cameroon Ghana Lao P.5 1.7 177.6 61.04 Note: DAI values are shown to hundreds of a decimal point.26 0.7 153.63 0.15 0.6 44.0 501.29 0.11 0.03 0.24 0.1 6.05 0.3 134.4 2.0 0.00 0.8 72.90 0.1 1.8 247.01 0.7 183.12 0.2 0.7 0.15 0.3 0.04 0.00 0.9 2.0 97.09 0.00 0. Source: ITU. AFINFRA.14 0.2 348.01 0.11 0.0 0.1 0.66 0.17 0.3 0.06 0.15 0.57 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.18 0.7 7.38 0.3 0.4 0.0 4.00 0.3 2.5 0.3 1.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Table 5.0 0.3 39.7 1.1 0.71 0.5 0.3 66.FORSTRUC DABI.01 0.03 0.3 177.59 0.18 0.3 66.0 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.3 52.5 233.0 0.2 0.5 4.1 0.0 0. Congo Benin Mozambique Angola Burundi Guinea Sierra Leone Central African Rep.38 0.0 1.0 0.13 0.8 1.4 4.3 1.2 0.00 0.3 1.04 0.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.4: DAI results (cont’d) Economy LOW Zimbabwe Honduras Syria Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Pakistan Azerbaijan S.5 4.4 0.64 0.0 0.1 0.6 7.00 0.05 0.7 1.12 0.02 0.2 83. p.21 0.7 362.21 0.2 2.0 0.5 0.17 0.09 0.5 8.4 0.6 68.15 0.01 0.00 0.7 70.5 0.00 0.01 0.17 0. Internet users p.28 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.5 0.19 0.00 0.7 113.6 0.19 0.24 0.8 123.0 0.9 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.50 0.1 143.26 0.01 0.2 0.74 0.7 1.5 0.4 354.0 0.5 0.00 0.0 0.65 0.0 0.00 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.4 76.22 0.0 49.3 0.6 34.0 0.3 0.7 146.20 0.8 56.03 0.10 0.9 207.5 550.0 44.0 1.00 0.01 0.7 1.10 0.9 0.42 0.0 0.41 0.0 0.1 3.9 42.9 45.18 0.00 0.00 0.R.2 0.D.7 68.00 0.12 0.2 0.0 0. 100 inhab.00 0.6 0.4 1.2 2.11 0.7 58.04 0.17 0.6 75.59 0.00 0.3 40.1 0.33 0.5 0.4 0.00 0.5 2.00 0. 100 inhab.0 840.05 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.03 0.0 0.1 0.14 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.3 0. Malawi Tanzania Haiti Nigeria Djibouti Rwanda Madagascar Mauritania Senegal Gambia Bhutan Sudan Comoros Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea D.43 0.3 13.03 0. 100 inhab.2 42.00 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.5 0.01 0.8 2.51 0.42 0.13 0.20 0.3 0.2 6.0 3.6 1.08 0.1 1.12 0.3 0.8 1.5 68.05 0.4 1.0 4.2 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.2 0.13 0.2 1.8 6.8 65.06 0.4 3.0 0.05 0.9 1.7 116.1 103.0 0.6 110.5 12.19 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.5 0.00 0.8 2.00 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.2 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.10 0.2 0.38 0.02 0.13 0.17 0.00 0. lines p.48 0.79 0.68 0.01 0.3 1.63 0.00 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.7 56.01 0.68 0.2 2.3 0.3 51.02 0.01 0.9 0.00 0.25 0.6 3.2 1.12 0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.8 0.1 99.00 0.17 0.61 0.01 0.1 0.5 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.88 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.42 0.9 1.0 0.2 148.0 79.03 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.1 58.01 0.3 0.04 0.0 49.77 0.01 0.4 24.6 0.00 0.0 81.40 0.0 0.1 0.3 703.0 1.08 0.23 0.6 0.9 1.02 0.00 0.6 45.6 45.3 0.7 65.6 89.0 50.3 75.15 0.2 3.51 0.00 0.3 336.3 1.0 9.1 0.00 0.0 76.49 0.6 47.1 1.14 0.19 0.00 0.24 0.2 857.4 1.5 4.19 0.00 0.1 3.00 0.01 0.3 0.KNOWTURE LITY LEDGE QUALITY USAGE DAI 2.75 0.04 0.4 0.6 0.00 0.2 0.01 0.05 0.46 0.20 0.3 84.01 0.06 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.7 180.3 0.4 0.5 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.2 0.0 3.41 0.13 0.01 0.41 0.8 4.4 1.0 0.0 375. Economies with the same DAI value are ranked by thousands of a decimal point.02 0.9 329.73 0.24 0.3 0.00 0.0 0.4 65.8 206.7 1.17 0.00 0.4 0.8 1.8 110.18 0.8 10.3 2.9 191.0 0.2 0.9 212.0 0.00 0.00 0. 122 .1 3.3 0.7 38. 100 inhab.41 0.2 41.54 0.61 0.3 2.0 0.01 0.00 0.47 0.5 0.51 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.0 132.10 0.1 0.8 2.8 0.1 0.00 0.4 465.8 1.12 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.4 0.27 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 138.00 0.15 0.8 83.24 0.5 0.02 0.2 5.8 0.8 0.42 0.04 0.4 0.00 0.14 0.45 0. 100 inhab.5 353.30 0.14 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.16 0.0 6.5 0.1 807.01 0.0 0.15 0.9 58.1 0. Ethiopia Guinea-Bissau Chad Mali Burkina Faso Niger Sub.29 0.3 2.4 3.02 0.7 4.9 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.49 0.14 0.0 0.19 0.64 0.18 0.01 0.4 1.00 0.0 0.4 72.3 1.1 9.5 59 62 59 41 54 36 69 58 71 58 52 65 63 64 54 52 67 50 55 71 45 47 57 48 46 57 72 31 52 45 21 52 41 43 38 47 33 34 40 39 33 27 49 37 29 31 34 51 24 34 43 33 29 22 17 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.8 16.13 0.0 0.2 0.3 2.3 0.03 0.0 287.0 0.7 38.0 85.6 0.17 0.0 0.3 2.10 0.2 1.2 0.1 3.01 0.0 58.00 0.7 1.0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.6 1.41 0.00 0.1 152.0 0.02 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.8 464.72 0.2 0.16 0.18 0.0 1.0 0.01 0.0 0.8 0.

Also see Reynolds. Available from: www. The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for a Networked World.int/ITU-D/ict/cs. (1998). 3rd World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting. 2003. Available from: www. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX 1 For example. 2003. Human Development Report 2001.ac.pdf.itu. accessed November 11. 2003. Diminishing the Digital Divide in Switzerland. 2003. 2003. The phrase lumps statistics in with lies implying that the former can be used misleadingly.org/en/docs/iteipc20031_en. accessed November 11. UNDP. eBusiness Forum. However an assessment carried out in 1996 found that “about 20 per cent of Australians aged 15-74 had very poor literacy skills and could be expected to experience considerable difficulties in using many of the texts and documents…that they encounter in daily life”. IDC.htm. “Educational Attainment: Literacy Skills”. accessed November 11.5. 2003.int/ITU-D/ict/WICT02/doc/pdf/Doc28_Erev1. Available from: http://www. 3rd World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting. Internet Country Case Studies.” American University (USA).ca.ebusinessforum. Available from: http://www. Damned Lies and Statistics”. “The 2003 E-Readiness Rankings”. Internet Report: Internet for a Mobile Generation. Economist Intelligence Unit. For example Australia’s level of adult literacy is reported as close to 100 per cent. measuring per capita computer numbers or mobile phone penetration alone provides only a partial. January). Building a Brave New World.unctad. Haag.unomaha. <www.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=6427.com/index. Australian Bureau of Statistics.com/getdoc. and potentially misleading. For detailed examinations of ICT indices see UNCTAD.itu. R.idc. accessed November 11.abs. Available from: www.pdf. Information and communication technology development indices.itu. World Economic Forum. Available from: http://www. accessed December 1. The IDC Information Society Index 2003. accessed December 8. glimpse of the whole picture (as described in Chapter two of this report). Chapter 2. accessed November 11. 2003. (2003.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies. ITU. The Global Diffusion of the Internet Project. October). 2003. (2003. Available from: http://www. accessed November 15. Leonard Henry Courtney.pdf. 2003. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. “Quantifying the evolution of copyright and trademark law. Mosaic Group. accessed November 11.au/Ausstats/abs@. however. Available from: http://www. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 123 . accessed November 11. (2003. should be treated with caution”. accessed November 11. “Today’s technological transformations — creating the network age”. Available from: http://www. T.int/osg/spu/publications/sales/mobileinternet/index. (2002). “ICT Development Indices”. P.html. Available from : www.nsf/Content/ Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Information+Technology+Report%5CGlobal+Information+Technology+Report+20022003+-+Readiness+for+the+Networked+World . 2003. Biggs. Available from: http://mosaic.york. 2003.nsf/0/7551ea164d95600cca2569ad000402b4?OpenDocument.gov. Available from: http://hdr. W. a British Baron. coined the term. 2003.edu/gdi.orbicom.int/ITU-D/ict/WICT02/doc/pdf/Doc40_E. (2001). (2003). March). can be a very valuable tool.itu.pdf. accessed November 11.org/reports/global/2001/en/pdf/chaptertwo. (2003. ITU. Orbicom. Gerster and A. June 2003. 2003.index. January).org/site/homepublic. A combination of such indicators.html. See University of York (UK).weforum. “Lies.undp. accessed December 4.ch/asp/NCurrent. Indeed the Swiss themselves are concerned about the results of various rankings: “This respectable ranking.asp. on the other hand. (2002-2003).jhtml?containerId=TB20030619>.uqam. (2003). A NEW. 2003. Monitoring the Digital Divide … and beyond. accessed November 11. Available from: http://www. Also see McHenry.gersterconsulting. (2003). “Studying the Digital Divide with the Mosaic group Methodology”.

World Bank. For example. Most of the Internet traffic in a developing country is international (75-90 per cent). 2003. eEurope+ Action Plan. accessed November 11. Perth. July). SIBIS Country Report.pdf. China has the highest mobile penetration rate in the world at 106 per 100 inhabitants. so the size of its international traffic compared to population size provides a ready indication of the extent of Internet activity in a country”. Slovenia. ISDN is a technology that increases the capacity of a standard telephone line. For example the eEurope+ initiative reflects EU ICT objectives and targets for candidate countries. March). 2003. V.itu. Data for these economies was provided by TeleGeography. According to its website <www. or Megabits per second (Mbps). See TeleGeography. see ITU. accessed November 11.si/mid/mideng. Available from: http://www.sisplet. Broadband Korea: Internet Case Study. 2003. (2003. (2003.pdf. Available from: http://www.dubaiinternetcity. Fixed telephone lines declined in 29 developing nations between 2001 and 2002. “Technical Note”.idrc. “GNI per capita 2002”. (2001.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 15 Gray. June). Taiwan. (2003. (2003. “Knowledge indicators: measuring information societies in Asia-Pacific”. See European Union. “The Internet: Out of Africa” available from http://web.pdf. Asia-Australasian Regional Conference. 2003.telegeography. For more on ICT developments in Slovenia see University of Ljubljana (Slovenia).undp. Human development Report 2003. Available from: europa.eu. 2003.pdf.pdf. at www2. accessed November 11. 2003.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC. accessed November 11.html. accessed December 1. See International Development Research Centre. and has the largest 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124 . 2003. A number of primarily developed nations do not compile aggregated figures for the international bandwidth of all Internet connectivity providers. UNDP. Available from: http://www. It is the Middle East’s biggest IT infrastructure. Available from: http://www. take mobile telephone penetration. accessed November 15.pdf. This is not a phenomenon restricted to developed nations. August). most often measured in Kilobits per second (Kbps). accessed November 11. accessed November 11.com/pubs/internet/reports/ig_gbl/index. Available from http://www.gov.php?ID=6568_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC.pdf. For methodology.ca/ev.nsf. Available from: http://www. built inside a free trade zone.worldbank.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_backmatter_2. 2003. Australia.org/ris/uploads/publikacije/2003/slovenia_cremonti. Human development Report 2003. Available from: http://www. Global Internet Geography Database and Report.itu. see UNDP. An absolute goalpost chosen in the early 1990’s would have assumed that the highest possible penetration rate was 100 mobile phones per 100 inhabitants. June). “One indicator that is becoming increasingly popular is the amount of international Internet bandwidth used by a country — the ‘size of the pipe’. 2003.int/information_society/topics/international/regulatory/eeuropeplus/doc/eEurope_june2001.com> the Dubai Internet City “provides a Knowledge Economy Ecosystem that is designed to support the business development of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) companies.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/2003/Knowledge%20indicators%20%20measuring%20information%20societies%20in%20AP.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_backmatter_2. Many European nations include the number of channels in their main line statistics even though there is no increase in actual physical telephone lines.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/korea/material/CS_KOR. For more on ICT developments in the Republic of Korea. accessed November 15. Basic rate ISDN converts a telephone line into two lines or “channels” whereas primary rate adds 30 channels. International Telecommunications Society. 2003.undp. “Technical Note”. accessed November 11. Ministry of Information Society.

pdf. 2003. Licoppe. 2003. The United Nations Development Programme establishes the goalposts and weights for the indictors in the Knowledge category.com/ourservices/dialup/e-home.cid.pdf.com/resources/essay_archive/telephony/tg1992_women_calling.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/asia/2002/index. See http://www.subtel.undp. UNDP and UNIFEM.5. According to the manager of a Zimbabwean information technology company. INCLUSIVE ICT INDEX commercial Internet Protocol Telephony system in the world”. Asia-Pacific Telecommunication Indicators 2002. accessed November 15. Bi-annual (mid and end of year) population data and annual survey data on Internet users are available from the C&SD website at www. Social Psychology Quarterly. accessed November 15. 2003.info. “Current research in France and Germany informs that women use the domestic telephone twice as much as men…” http://www.itu. Landlocked countries are at an even greater disadvantage since their international connectivity options are restricted to satellite.harvard. Desarrollo Humano en Las Comunas de Chile.telegeography. UNDP (Chile). 2003. 2003.gov. lack of traffic exchanges and small economies of scale.i-cable.html. 2003. Z.html. accessed November 11. accessed December 1.gov. “Gender-Specific Use of the Domestic Telephone”. Apart from featuring monthly time series OFTA is one of the few regulators that also compiles international Internet bandwidth. Internet access prices are from i-Cable’s website: http://www. Available from: http://www.hk/censtatd/eng/hkstat/hkinf/it/it_2_index. September). 2003. Available from: http://www. “There is tremendous intellectual talent in Zimbabwe …”. The gender-disaggregated DAI sub-index is based on the methodology used by the UNDP for the Gender–related development index. 2003.sg/idaweb/doc/download/I2389/Survey_on_BB_and_wireless_usage_in_Spore_2002. (2002).itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/.ida. (2000). accessed November 11. 29 One cause for the high retail Internet access prices in this group of economies is the relatively steep prices they pay for wholesale international Internet connections.html. (2002. accessed November 30. accessed November 15. A NEW. For more on the Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor and the Mauritius Cyber Park see the country reports on the ITU Internet Case Study page at http://www. accessed November 11. Available from: http://www. Available from http://www. See the “Data and Statistics” web page under the “Telecom Facts” menu on the OFTA website. 2003. accessed November 15. See Center for International Development at Harvard University. accessed November 11.cl. For more on problems low income nations face in reducing international Internet connectivity costs and possible solutions see the “Improving IP Connectivity in the least developed countries” web page at http://www. This stems from having to pay the full cost of the connection though the country on the other end of the link benefits.int/osg/spu/ni/ipdc/index. 2003. Informe de Estadísticas Septiembre 2003 (Informe N°8). ITU. Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (Chile). 2003. “ZW”.html.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_backmatter_2.cl/otraspub_grl. Gender and Development: Facts and Figures in Thailand. Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore.gov. Available from: http://www. www.hk.ofta.html. December). (2000). 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 125 . (2000).itu. Smoreda and C. A 1996 French study found that women originated 63 per cent of calls from home telephones.pdf. “Survey on Broadband and Wireless Usage”.htm.edu/cr/profiles/Zimbabwe.desarrollohumano. accessed December 1. (2003. Other contributory factors to the high prices are constrained domestic competition.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.

CONCLUSIONS

T

he world is still a long way from agreeing upon a common and extensive set of information society access indicators. Where data do exist, they are sometimes unreliable, confusing, incomplete, out of date or not internationally comparable. They are also often difficult to locate. The problem is particularly acute for developing nations, some of which lack the technical expertise or resources to collect, compile and disseminate ICT statistics. In an effort to standardize a minimum set of information society access indicators that every country should collect, ITU proposes its basket of e-ITU indicators (Table 6.1). These have been selected as the most relevant for a wide range of economies based on the analysis in this report. Adoption of these indicators would significantly enhance the ability to compare country performance over time and to benchmark one economy to another. These indicators can also be disaggregated. For example, the percentage of households with Internet access could be broken down by homes with broadband access. This is relevant for countries that require a greater degree of precision or to compare more advanced economies amongst themselves. This is particularly interesting for indicators that might appear mundane such as the percentage of households with a radio. In this case, the indicator could be analysed by the availability of digital reception or Internet-enabled radios. In addition, the following recommendations are made to improve the collection of the required indicators and enhance international comparability: • Model surveys such as those designed by Eurostat exist for collecting data on business and individual

and household use of ICTs. These should be followed to enhance international comparability. In cases where household or business surveys are already conducted by national statistical offices, efforts should be made to include ICT access questions. • Developed nations and multilateral agencies should assist developing nations to compile ICT indicators by providing technical assistance and material resources. Developing economies that have already conducted ICT surveys could assist other countries with methods and questionnaire construction. International assistance should be provided to get more national statistical offices from the developing world online and to provide material resources for conducting ICT surveys in developing nations. • Government ICT agencies such as the telecommunication regulator are ideally best placed to collect and disseminate administrative records on ICTs in the country (e.g. number of telephone subscribers, number of Internet subscribers, international Internet bandwidth). ICT policymakers should also liase with their national statistical offices to ensure that other survey-based data are collected such as the percentage of households with ICTs or the percentage of the population using ICTs. There is also a need to make available data more visible. Countries should identify a prominent website location for information society statistics. One excellent example is Australia where the Bureau of Statistics regroups a number of ICT indicators on a dedicated webpage (Figure 6.1). Another example is the Cyprus Statistical Service that combines individual, 127

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

Table 6.1: e-ITU indicators
Key indicators for measuring access to the information society
Indicator 1. Percentage of households with electricity 2. Percentage of households with a radio Category Universal service Note The percentage of households with electricity.

Universal service

The percentage of households with a radio receiver. This should include radios built-in to other devices such as stereo systems or alarm clocks as well as mobile phones and automobiles. The percentage of households with a television receiver. This should include both colour and black and white.

3. Percentage of households with a television 4. Percentage of households with a telephone

Universal service

Universal service

The percentage of households that have a telephone. This should be broken down by households with both a fixed and mobile subscription, only a fixed subscription and only a mobile subscription. For the percentage of households with a mobile phone, it would be useful to know if it is Internet-enabled. The percentage of households that have a personal computer used in the home.

5. Percentage of households with a personal computer 6. Percentage of households with Internet access 7. Percentage of population covered by mobile telephony

Universal service

Universal service

The percentage of households that have Internet access available in the home. A breakdown by the type of access (e.g. dial-up, broadband) would be useful.

Universal access

The percentage of the population that is covered by a mobile cellular signal. This should not be confused with the percentage of the land area covered by a mobile cellular signal or the percentage of the population that subscribe to mobile cellular service. Note that this measures the theoretical ability to use mobile cellular services if one has a handset and a subscription. The percentage of population that use a personal computer at any location (e.g. home, school, work).

8. Percentage of population that use a computer 9. Percentage of population with access to the Internet 10. Percentage of businesses with computers 11. Percentage of businesses with Internet access 12. Percentage of businesses with a website 13. Student to computer ratio

Universal access

Universal access

The percentage of the population that has easy access (e.g. at home, work or school or within a convenient distance of a public facility). This is not the same as an Internet user: although a person may have access to the Internet, they may not use it. The percentage of businesses that have computers at their location. This should be broken down by size of business (small, large, etc.).

Business

Business

The percentage of businesses that have computers at their location. This should be broken down by size of business (small, large, etc.).

Business

The percentage of businesses that have computers at their location. This should be broken down by size of business (small, large, etc.). The number of students to a computer. This should be broken down by primary, secondary and tertiary schools. It should also only include computers available to students and not those used for administrative purposes. This indicator could be further disaggregated by whether or not the computers are connected to the Internet. The percentage of schools with Internet access. This should be broken down by primary, secondary and tertiary schools. This indicator could be further disaggregated by the type of Internet connection. The percentage of government offices with Internet access. This should be broken down by the number of employees as well as the type of government office (e.g. central, local).

Education

14. Percentage of schools with Internet access

Education

15. Percentage of government offices with Internet access

Government

128

6. CONCLUSIONS

Table 6.1: e-ITU indicators (cont'd)
Key indicators for measuring access to the information society
Indicator 16. Percentage of government offices with a website 17. Percentage of government employees with Internet access 18. Fixed telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants Category Government Note The percentage of government offices with a website. This should be broken down by the number of employees as well as the type of government office. This indicator could be further disaggregated by whether the website offers interactive services. This includes only employees with Internet access from the office.

Government

DAI§

Fixed telephone subscribers refer to persons that pay for a telephone line connecting a customer’s equipment (e.g. telephone set, facsimile machine) to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and which have a dedicated port on a telephone exchange. Per 100 inhabitants is calculated by dividing the number of fixed telephone subscribers by the population and multiplying by 100. Cellular mobile telephone subscribers refer to users of portable telephones subscribing to an automatic public mobile telephone service using cellular technology that provides access to the PSTN. Per 100 inhabitants is obtained by dividing the number of cellular subscribers by the population and multiplying by 100. The costs associated with 20 hours dial-up Internet use per month. If broadband prices are cheaper, these should be used instead. The data should include any associated telephone usage charges but not the telephone line rental. Gross National Income is used as the divisor. International Internet bandwidth refers to the speed of data flows from the country to international Internet connection points measured in bits per second. Bits per inhabitant is calculated by dividing the international Internet bandwidth by the population. Broadband subscribers refer to the sum of DSL, cable modem and other broadband subscribers where the speed is greater than 128 kbps in at least one direction. Per 100 inhabitants is calculated by dividing the total number of broadband subscribers by the population and multiplying by 100. Internet users are those who regularly use the Internet (preferably at least once a month). The best measure of determining the number of users is through a survey. Information about the age, frequency of use and type of access should be provided. Per 100 inhabitants is calculated by dividing the number of Internet users by the population and multiplying by 100.

19. Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants

DAI

20. Internet access tariff (20 hours per month) as percentage of per capita income 21. International Internet bandwidth per inhabitant

DAI

DAI

22. Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants

DAI

23. Internet users per 100 inhabitants

DAI

Note: § These indicators are needed to compile the Digital Access Index. Source: ITU.

household, business and education ICT access statistics in a one-page spreadsheet. 1 At the international level, a portal for information society indicators could be created, with links to national data, model questionnaires and methodological information. • Good statistical practice is important; transparency, clarity, timeliness and relevance are critical. Some countries provide regional breakdowns but do not provide a country total, and sometimes dates to which the data pertain

are not clear. Terms such as access, subscriber and user are often loosely employed though they mean different things. Some data cannot be collected through administrative records and surveys are indispensable. This is particularly the case with Internet user surveys, which should be conducted on a regular basis, and at least annually. A partnership between international organizations, national statistical agencies and ICT policy-makers can help achieve the objective of a core set of 129

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

Figure 6.1: National information society indicators portal
Australian Bureau of Statistics information and communication technology indicators

Source: www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/7599f94ffdbadccbca256d97002c8636!OpenDocument.

information society access indicators for a large number of countries. The second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), scheduled to take place in Tunis, Tunisia, in 2005,

is a particularly appropriate deadline for this. If this can be achieved, the world will have taken a giant step towards better measuring and understanding the information society.

130

many of which do not have websites. Limitations include sites where very few data are available online. One problem has been that the traditional data correspondents (typically national telecommunication ministries. even fewer analyse the indicators in great detail. As long as the situation persists whereby many nations profess the importance of access to ICTs. International assistance should be provided to get more national statistical offices online as well as to get them collecting ICT statistics. Alternatively. we may be bridging the divide without knowing about it! 131 . While few countries are able to provide a complete set of useful ICT indicators. One solution to finding official data is the use of regional reports. but very few developing governments actually compile and analyse the needed data. the Republic of Korea produces what is perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of computer and Internet use anywhere. There are exceptions whereby either the national statistical office or the government agency responsible for ICT publish reports analysing the data. Meaningful policies for enhancing access to ICTs cannot be designed without detailed statistics to provide a clear picture of the situation. The World Bank’s Africa Household Survey Databank has electronic versions of census and survey documents for countries in that region.6. The OECD also publishes household ICT data for its member countries. so too will the digital divide persist. In Europe. ICT policy-makers should liase with their statistical offices to ensure the needed data are collected. in a number of government publications. The Korea National Statistical Office publishes the annual 400-page Report on the Computer and Internet Use Survey.2 Some provide the results of surveys and censuses online including. governmental ICT statistical publications are available for the Baltic and Nordic countries. CONCLUSIONS Box 6.4 A benefit of this is that data on television. For instance. Several steps could be taken to enhance the availability of official ICT data. also publishes the twice-yearly Survey on the Number of Internet Users and Internet Behaviour. The European Union disseminates some ICT data on its existing and prospective members. Either government offices responsible for ICT or the statistical office should create a website where information society statistics are kept. ITU has had to devote extra resources to locating census and household surveys to update the database. The report contains detailed statistics on ICT use disaggregated by dozens of variables.1: Sources and analysis of ICT data ITU is endeavouring to enhance the availability of ICT data by expanding its compilation of indicators from administrative records to include also household surveys. health.3 The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS+) programme is a worldwide project initiated by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide data and analysis on the population. the data are only available in national languages and locating the data is difficult. data on ICTs in households. A starting point are those national statistical offices that are online. The Korea Network Information Centre (KRNIC). and nutrition of women and children in developing countries. radio and telephone in households has been compiled for a number of countries and is available from the DHS+ database. the government agency responsible for Korea’s domain name. regulators or incumbent operators) often have scarce contact with national statistical offices and are therefore not aware of what data are available. Another solution is the use of websites that have libraries of household surveys and census publications or that compile data from these. when available.

Country Statistics.org/afr/poverty/databank/default. 2003. See: http://unstats. When consulted in September 2003. 2 3 4 132 . Demographic and Health Surveys. there were 116 entries.htm. accessed September 6.mof. Available from: http://www4.gov.com.org/unsd/methods/inter-natlinks/sd_natstat.nsf/All/378096EF4CC2ADC3C2256D41001E4714/$file/ INFORMATION%20SOCIETY-EN-080803. accessed November 6. The Statistics Division of the United Nations maintains a list of links to online statistical offices. accessed November 6. The World Bank Group.measuredhs. 2003.worldbank. 2003.un.cy/mof/cystat/statistics. Africa Household Survey Databank. accessed December 7.xls?OpenElement.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 1 See the “Information Society” spreadsheet available on the Cyprus Statistical Service website at http://www. 2003. Available from: http://www.cfm.

data and video. For example an ICT service provider typically maintains administrative records on the number of its subscribers. AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.). Singapore. Analogue: Communications signal represented by the pitch and volume of a voice. Often used by national statistical agencies to refer to ICTs such as televisions and personal computers.GLOSSARY. ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode. Cell: The geographic area covered by a single base station in a cellular mobile network. by for example. China. It dynamically allocates bandwidth and uses a fixed-size data packet. each of which covers one geographic cell within the total cellular system service area. Affects both the quantity and the speed of information transmitted. CNNIC: China Internet Network Information Centre. BDT: ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau. such as Internet. Baltic countries: Estonia. Access: The capability or opportunity to use an ICT device or service. A DSL variant in which traffic is transmitted at different rates in different directions (upstream and downstream). Cellular: A mobile telephone service provided by a network of base stations. BIS: Baltic Information Society. C&SD: Census and Statistics Department. CATV: Cable Television. Lithuania. to be delivered over a cable TV network. Consumer durable: Product or service found in households. ADSL: Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line. Measurement of the transmission speed of units of data (bits) over a network. A very fast data transmission method. which allows highspeed interactive services. CD-ROM: Compact Disk Read Only Memory. Latvia. Bps: Bits per second. Korea (Rep. 133 . Broadband: Transmission capacity with sufficient bandwidth to permit combined provision of voice. Administrative record: Data stored for operational purposes such as inventories or billing. Cable modem: A technology. China. ATI: Agence Tunisienne d’Internet. CONATEL: Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones. There are various definitions of broadband. COFETEL: Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones (México). In this report the term refers to DSL and cable modem services with bandwidth greater than 128 kbps in at least one direction. having access at home. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 3G: Third-generation mobile communication system. CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS GLOSSARY. Taiwan. Affordability: Pricing of an ICT service so that most citizens can pay for it. Bandwidth: The capacity of a communications path. China. Hong Kong. See also DSL. Usually measured in bits per second. Access to ICTs does not mean that a person is using them. being within walking distance of a location that has ICTs or being within coverage of wireless ICT services. ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Interchange. Asian Tigers: Refers to the following group of economies: Hong Kong. Generic name for mobile network/service based on the IMT-2000 family of global standards.

DVD: Digital Video Disk. E-mail: Electronic mail. Interconnection: The physical connection of telecommunication networks owned by two different operators. Distance education: Teaching and learning. GDAI: Gender-disaggregated Digital Access Index. by right. Transmission of information between computers using standardized electronic versions of common business documents. Index: A numerical scale that combines multiple indicators into a single overall value. Density: The amount in relation to the population. 134 GNP: Gross national product. HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus. DCC: Digital Community Centre. IDC: International Data Corporation. EC: European Commission. INEI: Institute Nacional de Estadistica y Informatica. GNI: Gross national income. EU: European Union. United States. Effective teledensity: The number of fixed telephone subscribers or cellular mobile telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants. in which learning normally occurs in a different place from teaching. FCC: Federal Communication Commission. de jure: According to law. 900 or 1800 Mhz. EDI: Electronic Data Interchange. FTTH: Fibre to the Home. whichever is highest. . actually. ICT: Information and communication technology. Digital: Representation of voice or other information using digits 0 and 1. DEL: Direct Exchange Line. de facto: In reality or fact. GDI: Gender Development Index. DAI: Digital Access Index. It is also used to refer to a location on the radio frequency spectrum. Measured in terms of land coverage (the percentage of the territorial area covered by mobile cellular) or population coverage (the percentage of the population living within range of a mobile cellular network). such as 800. Hz: Hertz. Typically derived per 100 inhabitants. Eurostat: Statistical Office of the European Commission. Peru. DSL: Digital subscriber line. IMF: International Monetary Fund. Internet café: A facility offering access to the Internet for the general public. The frequency measurement unit equal to one cycle per second. usually measured in Hertz (see Hz). GDP: Gross domestic product.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Coverage: Refers to the range of a terrestrial mobile cellular network. Frequency: The rate at which an electrical current alternates. Electronic commerce: Use of the Internet for sales and purchases. A high-speed Internet connection using telephone lines. Indicator: A ratio derived from a statistic. HDI: Human Development Index. GSM: Global System for Mobile communications. Fixed line: A physical line connecting the subscriber to the telephone exchange. DHS: Demographic and Health Survey. Also includes wireless local loop (WLL) where the user’s terminal equipment is located in a fixed location.

Local loop: The connection that runs from the subscriber’s telephone set or telephone system to the telephone company’s central office. KRNIC: Korea Network Information Centre. Finland. PDA: Personal Digital Assistant. and multiplying by 100. PTO: Public Telecommunication Operator. PSTN: Public Switched Telephone Network. NSO: National Statistical Office. Australia. OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Norway. which has an Internet Protocol address. PIAP: Public Internet Access Point. Portal: A single website through which users navigate the Internet. United States. MDG: Millennium Development Goals. See also Bps. ISP: Internet service provider. Main telephone line: Telephone line connecting a subscriber to the telephone exchange equipment. Penetration: A measurement of access to telecommunications. MENA: Middle East and North Africa. See fixed lines. Nordic Countries: Refers to the following group of countries: Denmark. IP: Internet Protocol. Kbps: Kilo bits per second. NRI: Network Readiness Index. LDCs: Least developed countries. OGS: Other official government source. data and images over conventional telephone lines. ISDN: Integrated Services Digital Network. PBX: Private Branch Exchange. NGO: Non-governmental organization. Iceland. ITU: International Telecommunication Union. NIS: Nordic Information Society. PC: Personal Computer. Ownership: Possessing an ICT device. Also referred to as density. PrepCom: Preparatory Committee (see WSIS). Mobile density: Number of mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Sweden. POP: Point of Presence. Mbps: Mega bits per second. LAN: Local Area Network. MoH: Ministry of Health. PPP: Purchasing power parity. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Internet host: A computer connected to the Internet. supporting transmission of voice. RCC: Regional Computer CentreCommonwealth for Communications. IT: Information technology. NSFNet: National Science Foundation Network. South Africa.GLOSSARY. 135 . MoE: Ministry of Education. It is usually calculated by dividing the number of subscribers by the population. MTN: Mobile Telephone Network. A digital switched network. See also Bps. This term is synonymous with the term fixed line used in this report. Questionnaire: A form for entering information. MCT: Multipurpose Community Telecentre. NOIE: National Office for the Information Economy.

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 RHL: Reproductive Health Library. SIM: Subscriber Identity Module. Telework: Work carried out from home through a telecommunication connection. Subscription: A licensing agreement in which the licensee makes a payment to the service provider for access to ICTs. Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Germany. radiopaging. WSIS: World Summit on the Information Society. SMME: Small. UNCTAD: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Total teledensity: Total telephone subscribers (main telephone lines and mobile subscribers) per 100 inhabitants. Statistically measured as the percentage of the population covered by information and communication technologies. SIBIS: Statistical Indicators for Benchmarking the Information Society. Universal service: Refers to availability and widespread affordability of ICTs. Mexico. Universal access: Refers to reasonable access to ICTs for all. ZEF: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung. UNPAN: United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance. Telecentres: Public call offices equipped to provide services. RIPE: Réseaux IP Européens. SCT: Secretary of Communications and Transport. User: Using an ICT. WEF: World Economic Forum. SMS: Short Messaging Service. it may or may not have a central processing unit. and the person using an ICT. The level of universal service is statistically measured as the percentage of households with ICTs. Use. WHO: World Health Organisation. UNDP: United Nations Development Programme. URL: Uniform Resource Locator. TAI: Technology Achievement Index. SME: Small and Medium Sized Enterprise. UN: United Nations. UNESCO: United Nations Educational. Spectrum: The radio frequency spectrum of hertzian waves used as a transmission medium for cellular radio. WLL: Wireless local loop. SIDS: Small Island Developing States. Survey: The process of acquiring information from a sample of the population that is statistically representative of the entire population. UNIFEM: United Nations Development Fund for Women. 136 . Teledensity: Number of main telephone line subscribers per 100 inhabitants. Workstation: A terminal used to enter and retrieve electronic information. Medium sized and Micro Enterprise. Includes universal service for those that can afford individual ICT service and widespread provision of ICTs within a reasonable distance for others. over-the-air broadcasting and other services. Usage: Actual utilisation of a given service. Wireless: Generic term for communication services that do not use fixed-line networks but transmit information using radio signals. satellite communication. which may range from basic telephony to Internet access.

A model layout will be made available. questions A4-5 and modules B-D on individual level) Individuals can be targeted when drawing sample. great importance. Lower age limit: 16 years Upper age limit: (at least) 74 years Member states can widen these age bands but should report results outside these limits separately Second quarter 2002 First quarter 2002 At least those included in the Eurostat proposal enclosed Member States can include additional questions The scaling of some of the multiple choice questions (e. recommended to use the order shown in the list of variables enclosed. no importance) is optional (in some countries this might be necessary for telephone interviews) The order and layout in which the questions are set out is up to the contracting country. however.ANNEXES ANNEX 1 General outline for Eurostat’s planned household surveys on ICT usage Main survey subject: Survey type: Survey technique: Sampling unit: ICT usage of households and individuals Household survey Recommended techniques: Telephone survey (computer assisted) or face to face interview Households and individuals (questions A1-3 on household level. some importance.g. A glossary and interviewer instructions linked to the should be developed. At least 4000 filled in questionnaires is recommended to be normally collected in total per country. It is. Eurostat encourages Member States with a common language to co-operate in pre-testing. stratification: Glossary questionnaire Interviewer instructions 137 . The sample size should be appropriate for obtaining representative results for the socio-demographic groups shown at the end of the list of variables and for Internet users specifically. Pre-test: a small pre-test of the questionnaire should be carried out by participating countries. Age limit: Survey period: Reference period: Questions to be included: Scaling of questions: Layout of questionnaire: Sample size.

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 List of questions for Eurostat household surveys on ICT usage (version 26/3/2002) Module A: Access to selected IC technologies Questions directed to households A1 Does your household have any of these at home? a) Internet enabled mobile phone b) Other mobile phone c) Conventional analogue (terrestrial) TV d) Digital terrestrial TV e) Satellite dish connected to TV f) Cable TV g) Desktop computer h) Portable computer i) Handheld computer (palmtop) j) Car with a traffic navigation system A2 Does any member of this household have access to the world wide web (Internet) at home (regardless of whether it is used)? Yes p No p (go to A4) Do not know p A3 If yes.) e) Lack of confidence or skills f) Language barriers (optional) g) Physical disability (optional) h) Privacy or security concerns i) Other (Please. specify…………………) j) Don’t know A5 Do you have a personal home page/web site on the Internet? Yes p No p Do not know p 138 . GPRS) f) Games console g) Other means h) Don’t know Questions directed to individuals A4 If no. what are the main reasons for you not having access to the Internet at home? (Multiple choice) (Optional question) a) Have access to Internet elsewhere b) Don’t want/Internet content not useful c) Equipment costs too high d) Access costs too high (telephone etc. on which device is the Internet accessed at home? (Multiple choice) a) Desktop computer b) Portable computer c) Handheld computer d) TV set (digital TV or set top box) e) Mobile phone alone (WAP.

did you access the Internet? Yes p No p (If no. frequency of use B1 In the last 3 months. town hall.……….. friend or relatives house B6 Approximately how many hours per week did you spend on the Internet* at home or elsewhere in the last 3 months? ….ANNEXES The following questions are directed to individuals Module B: Use of computers and Internet: location. end of survey) B4 How often and where did you access the Internet in the last 3 months? At least once a day At least once a week but not every day At least once a month but not every week Less than once a month a) At home b) At work c) At place of education d) At other places B5 At which of these other places did you access the Internet in the last 3 months? a) Public Library b) Postal Office c) Public Office. hours (per week) (*active use only) 139 . community centre d) Internet Café e) Neighbour. did you use a computer? Yes p B2 No p On average how often and when did you use a computer in the last 3 months? At least once a day At least once a week but not every day At least once a month but not every week Less than once a month a) At home b) At place of work (others than home) c) At place of education d) At other places B3 In the last 3 months.

shares / financial services) m) Selling goods and services (e. banking k) Financial services (e.g. via auctions) Interaction with public authorities n) Obtaining information from public authorities web sites o) Downloading official forms p) Sending filled in forms C2 For which of the following work related activities carried out at home did you use the Internet in the last 3 months? Employment related activities carried out at home a) Internet not used for work related activities at home b) Finding information relating to your work or business c) Looking for a job / sending job applications d) Sending work carried out at home to work place (teleworking) e) Other work related activities (optional: adding a filter question on the use for work related activities) 140 . share purchasing) l) Purchasing / ordering goods or services (excl. Internet Banking.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 Module C: Purpose and nature of activities on the Internet C1 For which of the following activities did you use the Internet (all places of use) in the last 3 months for private purposes? Communication a) Sending / receiving e-mails b) Telephoning over the Internet / Videoconferencing c) Other (use of chat sites etc.g.) Information search and on-line services d) Finding information about goods and services e) Using services related to travel and accommodation (optional) f) Using services related to training / education g) Using health related services h) Listening to Web radios / watching web television i) Playing/downloading games and music j) Reading/downloading online newspapers/news magazines Purchase of goods and services.

like to see product c) Force of habit / customer loyalty to shops /or suppliers d) Too expensive e)Too long delivery times f) Problematic to receive ordered goods at home g) Goods and services needed not available on the Internet h) Security concerns. portable. Video games) f) Computer hardware g) Electronic equipment (incl. did you buy or order goods and services for non-work use over the Internet? Yes p D2 (go to question D4) No p (Survey ends after question D3) If no. etc) D5 What types of goods and services did you buy or order over the Internet for non-work use in the last 3 m onths? Estimated number of purchases (Optional) a) Food / Groceries b) Films. palmtop) b) Via mobile phone (WAP. Minitel. GPRS) c) Other technologies (TV with Internet access. specify…………………) D4 Via which technology did you access the Internet for buying or ordering goods and services in the last three months? (Optional question (Multiple choice) a) Via PC (desktop. have you ever bought or ordered goods or services for non work use over the Internet? Yes p No p D3 What were the main reasons for not buying / ordering any goods or services for your own private use? (multiple choice) (Optional question) a) Have no need b) Prefer to shop in person. music c) Books / Magazines/ E-learning material d) Clothes. worried about difficulty for redress l) Other (Please. specify ……………. sports goods e) Computer software (incl.. worried about giving credit card details over the Internet i) Privacy concerns / worried about giving personal details over the Internet j) Trust concerns / concerned about receiving or returning goods k) Complaint / redress concerns.) D6 boxes) What was the total value of goods and services (excluding financial investments) you bought or ordered (non-work use) over the Internet in the last 3 months? ……… (currency…….) (optional: introduction of expenditure classes/tick 141 . cameras) h) Share purchases / Financial services/Insurance i) Travel and holiday accommodation j) Tickets for events k) Lotteries and betting l) Other (Please.ANNEXES Module D: Internet commerce details: activities and barriers D1 In the last 3 months.

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003
D7 Did you pay for any of those goods or services by giving your credit card details over the Internet? No p (Optional: breakdown by types of payment) Yes p

D8

Did you buy or order goods over the Internet from:
(Optional question)

a) Retailers you knew from outside the Internet (physical store, catalogues) b) Retailers known from the Internet or found on the Internet

D9

What % of your purchases / orders in the last 3 months would you estimate were
(Optional question)

a) From companies based in your own country b) From companies based in other European Union countries 1 c) From rest of world

% %

D10

What, if any, problems have you encountered when making purchases over the Internet?
(Optional question)

a) Speed of delivery longer than indicated b) Delivery costs higher than indicated c) Final price higher than indicated d) Wrong goods delivered e) Damaged goods delivered f) Lack of security of payments g) Uncertainty concerning guarantees h) Complaints and redress were difficult i) No satisfactory response received after complaint j) Others (Please, specify…………..)

11 The EU countries are: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom.

142

ANNEXES

Socio - demographic background variables
Household characteristics

Household type

Number of adults in household Number of dependent children
(Children <16 years old and economically inactive children 16-24 years old)

Home based business

-Household members running a home based business -Household members teleworking -No home based business and no teleworking

Individual characteristics Age Sex Concrete age should be asked, age classes will be aggregated later Male Female Low: Primary education/lower secondary Education level Medium: Upper Secondary education High: Tertiary (University) education Student Employment Situation Employee Self employed Family worker In compulsory military service Fulfilling domestic tasks (housewife etc) Unemployed Retired person Other inactive person Location Objective 1 region / other region (DK,L,NL have no objective 1 regions)

143

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003

Glossary
Module A Internet enabled mobile phone: Desktop computer: Portable computer: Mobile phone that can access the world wide web (Internet) via GPRS, WAP or other standards A non-portable personal computer that fits on top of a desk Battery powered easily transportable flat screen computer also called laptop or notebook computer; doesn’t include handheld computers Battery powered wallet-sized computer that can be held in also called palmtop computer, includes electronic organisers Personal homepage/web site: Personal site on the web (www) with personal or non-work related information (e.g. hobby sites) and a specific URL

Handheld computer one hand

Module C Public authorities web sites: Web sites of public authorities like central government, regional and local administration, police and social security organisations

Module D Goods and services Internet, bought or ordered over the mails Internet goods and services bought or ordered via a site on the goods and services bought or ordered via manually typed eshould not be included

Socio-demographic variables Household: Refers either to one person living alone or a group of people living together in the same dwelling unit. All persons in household that are not children Children < 16 years old and economically inactive children 1624 years old) Business mainly carried out at home. Telework occurs when employees, who are expected to work normally from fixed locations, carry out all, or part of their work at home and transfer the product of their work to the employer using information and communication technologies. The person can either be the owner of the computer or not and it is not necessary that the totality of his work is produced and transmitted to the employer through a PC

Number of adults in household: Number of dependent children:

Home based business: Teleworking:

Education level: Low: (ISECD 1 and 2) primary education and lower secondary education, These two steps normally represent compulsory education

144

ANNEXES
Medium: (ISCED 3 and 4) upper secondary education and post secondary non-tertiary education. This level generally begins at the end of compulsory education. High: (ISECD 5 and 6) tertiary programmes which normally require the successful completion of ISCED 3 or 4 and second stage tertiary education that leads to an advanced research qualification

Objective 1 regions: (the inclusion of phasing out objective 1 regions has been requested by DG INFSO, these regions are shown in italics) Belgium: Hainaut Germany: Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, SaxonyAnhalt and Thuringia, East Berlin Greece: the whole country Spain: Galicia, Principado de Asturias, Castille-Leon, Castille-La Mancha, Extremadura, Valencia, Andalusia, Murcia, Ceuta-Melilla and the Canary Islands, Cantabria France: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana and Reunion, Corsica, region bordering Hainaut Italy: Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicilia and Sardegna, Molise Ireland: the whole country Austria: Burgenland Portugal: the whole country Finland: East Finland, Central Finland (parts of) and North Finland (parts of) Sweden: North-Central (parts of), Central Norrland (parts of) and Upper Norrland (parts of) United Kingdom: South Yorkshire, West Wales and the Valleys, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly and Merseyside, Scotland: Highlands and Islands Countries with no objective 1 regions: Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands

Ultra-peripheral regions:

France: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana and Reunion Portugal: Acores and Madeira Spain: Canary Islands

145

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003
Interviewer instructions A small pretest is recommended in order to identify questions difficult to understand and to develop interviewer instructions. A few points are listed here, where interviewer instructions seem necessary. Module A A1: At home includes here mobile equipment (e.g. mobile phone) used at home or privately used elsewhere

Module B B1: B2, B4: Interviewer could assist by giving the starting date of the last 3 month period. Interviewer should read the place and then mention the frequency alternatives line by line in order to allow answering line by line If it is difficult for the respondent to give an unassisted answer, interviewer should help by providing usage brackets (proposal: less than one hour, 1-2 hours, 3-5 hours, 6-10 hours, 11-14 hours, 15-21 hours, more than 21 hours)

B6:

Module C C1: Interviewer should make brakes between question blocks. To facilitate answering interviewer could ask to answer each line with yes or no. For lines n-p interviewer should give examples for public authorities (see definition)

Module D D1: Interviewer should mention that goods and services bought or ordered by manually typed e-mails should not be included. To facilitate answering interviewer could ask to answer each line with yes or no. The examples to be provided to illustrate ‘ other technologies’ depend on the country. The example ‘Minitel’ should only be mentioned in France. To facilitate answering interviewer could ask to answer each line with yes or no. If the number of purchases is included in the questionnaire If it is difficult for the respondent to give an unassisted answer, interviewer should help by providing usage brackets, proposal of Eurostat
0-29 Euro 30-99 Euro 100-199 Euro 200-299 Euro 300-499 Euro 500-999 Euro 1000-2499 Euro 2500- Euro

D3: D4:

D5:

D6:

D9:

If respondent has difficulties identifying ‘EU countries’ interviewer could help by giving a list of EU countries: The EU countries are: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom.

Socio-demographic background variables Some of these background variables might be taken from the population register or when drawing the sample and do not need to be asked by the interviewer. Household type: Interviewer should explain what ‘dependent children’ means Education level: Interviewer should ask for the level achieved and classify it according to the highest level achieved

146

DATA TRANSMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE The following pages show the list of variables for the pilot surveys provided by Eurostat. A3 Does your company have a presence on the web? via Available Plan to have (in 2001) Own web site Third party web site Do not have (and do not plan to have in 2001) A4 If your company uses Internet. MODULE A: USE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES A1 Does your enterprise use personal computers.4 VARIABLES . since 1998 or earlier. METHODOLOGY OF THE EU PILOT STUDY ON E-COMMERCE AND OTHER SOURCES C H 5.…) Other broadband connection (> 2Mbps) A5 What are the problems or barriers your company faces using the Internet? (multiple choice) Very important Some importance Costs to make it available too high Internet access charges too high Lacking qualification of personnel/lack of specific know how Lack of perceived benefits for the company Lost working time because of irrelevant surfing Data communication too slow or unstable Lack of security (viruses. The list was the basis for preparing the national questionnaires in the participating countries. what is the type of connection used (several answers possible)? Mobile phone Analogue modem (dial up) ISDN xDSL (ADSL. hackers) Not important Do not know 147 . since 1999.ANNEXES ANNEX 2 5. workstations or terminals? yes If no go to the end of the survey no A2 Does your company use/plan to use the following technologies? Use Since (year) Plan to use (in 2001) Do not use (and do not plan to use in 2001) Intranet EDI Web access Note: the results of question A2 asking about the year since when the technologies have been used was compiled under the following categories: since 2000. In some cases the layout in the national questionnaires followed closely the layout in the list of variables.

148 . 10% or more. do you plan to use it in 2001? Internet EDI Plan to use B4 If your company makes e-commerce purchases. 25% or more. 5% or more. terms of delivery and guarantees Do not know B3 If your company does not make e-commerce purchases. no B2 What are the problems or barriers your company faces as regards making purchases using e-commerce? Very important Some importance Not important Goods and services required cannot be purchased using e-commerce Stock of (potential) suppliers too small Delivery costs Logistic problems (speed and timeliness of delivery) Uncertainty in making payments Uncertainty concerning contracts. 50% or more. The following proportions were used: 1% or more of purchases.WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003 5. METHODOLOGY OF THE EU PILOT STUDY ON E-COMMERCE AND OTHER SOURCES C MODULE B: USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE FOR PURCHASES B1 Does your company use electronic commerce to make purchases? yes If no you do not need to answer questions B4 to B8. 2% or more. since how long? Internet EDI Less than 1 year 1-2 years More than 2 years B5 For which of the following business processes related to purchases does your company use e-commerce? Internet EDI Ordering Payment Electronic Delivery B6 If you make purchases by e-commerce. which are the perceived benefits in it? Cost savings Speed of processing Simplification of tasks Offers from a large number of suppliers available B7 Does your company make purchases through specialised business to business Internet market places? yes no B8 What proportion of the value of all purchases of your company would you estimate is made by e-commerce? Using Internet Using all networks % of all purchases % % Note: the results of question B8 were compiled to show the number of enterprises using e-commerce for a proportion of their purchases.

149 .of which own country .of which to households (end consumers) What proportion of the value of all sales by your company would you estimate is made by e-commerce? Using Internet Using all networks % of all purchases % % Note: the results of this second part of question C8 were compiled to show the number of enterprises using e-commerce for a proportion of their sales. 25% or more.of which rest of world .of which other EU . The following proportions were used: 1% or more of sales. 50% or more. since how long? Internet EDI Less than 1 year 1-2 years More than 2 years For which of the following business processes does your company provide e-commerce facilities? Internet EDI Product information Price information Taking orders Payment Electronic Delivery C5 C6 If you make sales by e-commerce.ANNEXES 5. 2% or more. 5% or more. which are the perceived benefits in it? Cost reductions (rationalisation) Reaching new/more customers Geographic expansion of market Improvement of service quality Speed of processing Simplification of tasks Avoiding loss of market shares to companies already using e-commerce C7 Does your company make sales through specialised business to business Internet market places? yes no C8 If you make sales by e-commerce. terms of delivery and guarantees Cost of developing and maintaining an e-commerce system Logistic problems Consideration for existing channels of sales C2 Do not know C3 If your company does not make e-commerce sales. what would you estimate is the value of the sales of your company made by electronic commerce? Clients located in: Using Internet Using all networks Total . do you plan to use it by the end of 2001? Internet EDI Plan to use C4 If your company makes e-commerce sales. 10% or more. no What are the problems or barriers your company faces as regards making sales using e-commerce facilities? Very important Some importance Not important Goods and services available not suitable for sales by e-commerce Stock of (potential) customers too small Uncertainty in payments Uncertainty concerning contracts. METHODOLOGY OF THE EU PILOT STUDY ON E-COMMERCE AND OTHER SOURCES C R MODULE C: USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE FOR SALES C1 Does your company use e-commerce facilities to make sales? yes If no you do not need to answer questions C4 to C8.

.

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION INDICATORS December 2003 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION .

.

................. Equipment trade .......... Multichannel TV .............................................................................................CONTENTS Introduction ....................................... Information technology .... Telecommunication revenue ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A-1 Table A: List of economies ................................................................................. A-56 15........................................... A-8 Waiting list ............... 8.............................................. A-68 18.... A-24 Mobile cellular subscribers ......... A-28 Prepaid cellular tariffs ...................................................................................... A-40 11.......................................... A-76 20................................................ A-32 ISDN and ADSL....................................... A-36 10........................................................... 9.................................................... Basic indicators .............................................................................................................. A-64 17................. International telephone traffic ................. 5......................................................... Broadcasting ........................................................................................................ A-52 14................................................................................................................... A-89 A-iii ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Projections ....... A-48 13.............. 6...................................................... A-2 1.................................................................... A-44 12.............................................................................. A-85 Box 1: Other economies ................................................ A-20 Telephone tariffs .......................................................................................................................................................... A-12 Local telephone network .... 4.................................................................................. A-60 16................................................................................................................ A-4 Main telephone lines ......................................................................................................................................... Telecommunication staff ............................................... Internet tariff ..................................... Internet .................. A-16 Teleaccessibility ....... 2........................ A-80 Technical notes .............. A-72 19.......................................................... Telecommunication investment .... 7..................... 3...........................................................................................................

.

% Per cent. Economies are shown in alphabetical order within their income group in the tables. A-1 . Data for major telecommunication operators covering at least 90 per cent of the market are shown for all economies. 1’000’000). 1965.int/ict. Additional information about Telecommunication Indicators can be found at: http://www.e.. a complete measurement of the sector for some economies cannot be achieved. The data cover the public telecommunications sector.. US$ 9’076 or more. Also used for data items that are not applicable.e. and high.int. upper middle.itu.INTRODUCTION Data are presented for 182 economies with populations greater than 100’000 and where sufficient data are available. Billions (i. Due to differing regulatory obligations for the provision of data. CAGR Compound annual growth rate. Communication data come from an annual questionnaire sent to telecommunication authorities and operating companies. Comments and suggestions relating to the World Telecommunication Indicators should be addressed to: Market. These data are supplemented by annual reports and statistical yearbooks of telecommunication ministries. United States dollars. 1’000). See the Technical notes for how US$ figures are obtained. In some cases. Economies are grouped by 2002 United States dollar (US$) income levels: low. 1975-2002 is contained in a CD-ROM version available separately. Switzerland Fax: +41 22 730 6449 E-Mail: indicators@itu. The income level classification is based on World Bank methodology whereas the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita shown in Table 1 is based on the methodology described in the Technical notes. Data not available. Summary data for economies not listed in main tables are shown in Box 1. Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of US$ 735 or less. 1970. Economics and Finance Unit Telecommunication Development Bureau International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations CH-1211 Geneva. Other data are provided by the relevant international and national organizations identified in the Technical notes. See the Technical notes for how this is computed. Millions (i. . Thousands (i. See Table A for the fiscal year reporting period used in each country. operators and industry associations. See Table A for a list of economies in alphabetical order and their location in the tables. Data refer to the reporting period that is closest to the end of year indicated. US$ 736–2’935. regulators. The following signs and symbols are used in the tables: italic 000s M B US$ Year other than that specified or estimate. More detailed information about coverage and country specific notes together with a full timeseries from 1960. The absence of any sign or symbol indicates that data are in units. _ Zero or a quantity less than half the unit shown.e. 1’000’000’000). estimates are derived from ITU background documents or other references. US$ 2’936–9’075. lower middle.

12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao P.12 Ending 31.12 Region Europe Africa Africa Americas Americas Asia Oceania Europe Asia Americas Asia Asia Americas Europe Europe Americas Africa Asia Americas Europe Africa Americas Asia Europe Africa Africa Asia Africa Americas Africa Africa Africa Americas Asia Americas Africa Africa Americas Africa Europe Americas Europe Europe Africa Europe Africa Americas Americas Americas Africa Americas Africa Africa Economy Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hongkong.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macao.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.03 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 30.12.12 Ending 31.06 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Region Europe Africa Oceania Europe Europe Oceania Africa Africa Asia Europe Africa Europe Americas Americas Africa Africa Americas Americas Americas Asia Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Europe Asia Europe Americas Asia Asia Asia Africa Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe Asia Africa Africa Europe Europe Asia Africa Africa Asia Asia Africa Europe Oceania Africa Africa Albania Algeria Angola Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.R.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Beginning 01.06 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.) Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea (Rep.12 Ending 30.12.12 Ending 31. China Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (I.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.06 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. China Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Location 119 18 77 152 153 154 120 19 20 155 21 156 121 78 22 23 79 24 80 157 122 158 25 26 81 159 160 161 82 162 83 84 27 163 164 28 29 123 124 30 125 126 165 166 31 32 127 85 33 167 86 34 128 Fiscal year Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 30.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.09 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea A-2 . Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic D.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 30.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.TABLE A: LIST OF ECONOMIES Economy Location 60 61 1 141 111 62 142 143 2 144 145 3 146 63 147 112 4 5 64 65 113 66 148 67 6 7 8 9 149 68 10 11 114 69 70 12 13 115 14 116 71 150 117 15 151 72 118 73 74 75 76 16 17 Fiscal year Ending 31.06 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Ending 31.12 Ending 31.D.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31. R. Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Rep.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Ending 31.R.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 22.04 Ending 30.

04 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.09 Ending 31.09 Ending 15.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Region Americas Europe Asia Africa Africa Asia Africa Asia Europe Oceania Oceania Americas Africa Africa Europe Asia Asia Asia Americas Oceania Americas Americas Asia Europe Europe Asia Europe Europe Africa Africa Oceania Asia Africa Europe Africa Africa Asia Europe Economy Location 175 49 97 176 98 136 137 99 50 100 101 177 178 102 179 51 52 103 104 53 105 138 106 107 108 54 109 180 181 182 139 55 110 140 56 57 58 59 Fiscal year Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 30.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Lucia St.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.06 Region Europe Oceania Africa Europe Asia Americas Americas Americas Africa Americas Africa Europe Europe Asia Asia Asia Africa Europe Asia Africa Oceania Americas Africa Europe Asia Africa Europe Asia Europe Americas Americas Asia Oceania Americas Asia Asia Africa Africa Mexico Moldova Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda S.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. Tomé & Principe Samoa Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.04 Beginning 01.04 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.06 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31. China Tajikistan Tanzania TFYR Macedonia Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe A-3 .12 Ending 31.07 Ending 31. Kitts and Nevis St.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.06 Ending 31.04 Ending 31. Vincent Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan.12 Ending 30.04 Ending 30.12 Ending 30.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.04 Ending 31.Economy Location 129 35 36 87 37 38 88 39 168 169 170 40 41 42 171 130 43 89 131 44 90 91 92 132 172 173 93 94 45 46 95 133 47 96 134 48 174 135 Fiscal year Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.12 Beginning 01.12 Ending 31.12 Ending 30.12 Ending 31.04 Ending 31.12 Ending 31.

22 16.06 6.85 329 212.69 15 11.86 390 0.52 11 0. Basic indicators Population Total Density (M) (per km2) 2002 2002 13.87 86 24.R.75 344 14.78 1.08 36 0. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.25 35 8.90 0.82 8 1.75 0.73 1.34 117 1.83 33 3.03 279 10.92 4'894 3.50 1.91 27 10.60 138 10.54 1'794 22.80 350 1.08 130 145.81 1'868 7.58 10 1.99 72 23.89 1.94 11 8.29 13.18 0.44 778 7.65 4.07 8.38 45 34.93 11.35 6.41 3.96 6 7.75 1.98 42 67.90 404 0.54 13 6.52 109 1.30 299 1'041.93 55 5.08 51 4.17 310 0.53 23 2.44 111 10. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.20 164 5.59 6.46 12 8.35 0.23 1.19 1.17 1'653 5.40 0.08 1'152 23.35 244 7.29 57 81.06 3.12 121 5.51 18 3.78 0.11 111 31.40 159 1.17 1.1.35 79 1.13 925 6.49 51 52.51 110'628 4.03 3.67 91 7.18 953 4.49 1.89 270 3.27 0.72 6.64 8 5.70 1.65 251 3.69 3.15 157 10.34 0.18 448 8.93 832 2.39 1'363 8.62 76 GDP per capita (US$) 2002 715 497 352 413 734 220 89 254 623 265 212 303 967 711 143 4'289 196 96 333 673 209 381 173 380 494 860 386 315 328 330 277 158 318 365 337 439 215 148 237 470 165 409 428 777 208 331 506 152 611 396 188 271 301 243 257 429 513 312 654 455 Total telephone subscribers Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 215 1.37 44 11.98 5.72 90 1.25 54'108 5. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-4 .02 0.R.59 Effective teledensity 2002 0.99 251 13.23 23 48.52 4.39 1'045 23.39 5'832 7.80 60 0.12 641 5.63 9 2.22 2.07 1.25 247 19.35 55 1.08 41 8.82 0.96 44 6.70 14 11.53 9.17 71 15.79 117 2.87 6 0.14 2.45 134 1.70 102 25.79 76 15.93 71 21.74 2.67 31 1.49 1.84 2.89 227 2.68 3 4.49 2.36 4.81 3.32 0.43 1.30 3.16 338 1.01 787 4.53 7.27 570 1.29 74 1.43 2 18.13 5.51 374 6.34 1.14 20 2.76 409 3. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.50 103 10.19 19'450 9.57 223 1.15 7.63 30 2'412.97 39 0.31 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.76 4.33 2'310 1.44 37 4.37 128 4.35 724 3.75 10 120.65 22 0.71 863 2.14 94 133.84 0.10 26 5.32 281 4.41 221 4.89 1.34 2.06 415 3.97 22 0.55 46 0.40 131 2.D.44 15 32.95 3.25 1.54 448 1.12 4.96 182 5.30 10 16.84 154 1.03 1'757 1.95 68 0.

22 5.01 53'109 36.00 9.17 3'430 34.32 27.48 22.28 943 0.87 98 9.45 38 18.10 14.05 1'815 9.18 63 10. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.80 70 0.71 271 14.89 13.39 4.72 105 45.76 11.31 67 6.69 774'262 32.83 2'610 31.23 13 7.10 187 22.61 3.15 9.29 13 3.38 5'466 70.69 17.34 8 3.27 86 4.20 168 19.11 5 8.80 127 9.33 56 15.72 1'557 24.29 38 11.86 382 7.68 91 146.48 265 21.88 20 7.13 23.78 14 26.54 3'109 19.88 187 38.46 574 5.75 7.20 14 2'392.91 48 8.89 42'289 62.94 10.08 107 31.04 11.03 59 17.94 5.38 615 16.04 14.91 7.48 622 17.77 421'040 32.28 98 0.27 18.88 2 3.94 28 67.66 30.91 8.70 60 65.99 16. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-5 .18 5'243 48.75 21 79.88 4 6.60 1'437 17.19 25 3.45 1'894 35.29 11.69 25.01 1'844 70. Basic indicators Population Total Density (M) (per km2) 2002 2002 3.67 1'652 16.06 80 61.64 45 1.46 23.66 30 8.67 925 44.26 28.13 26.91 18'658 41.59 9 0.47 71 25.29 9'326 43.77 2'308 7.93 4.56 583 5.53 134 43.67 22.57 24.12 301 0.10 12.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.98 12 5.58 44 GDP per capita (US$) 2002 1'332 1'773 623 1'438 935 1'232 2'603 1'992 1'239 963 1'874 1'518 894 2'586 1'076 1'279 2'203 2'068 1'939 828 980 5'876 3'216 1'701 1'485 2'258 1'817 1'162 1'697 873 967 2'124 969 2'107 2'370 1'428 1'451 2'293 863 3'028 1'860 1'130 1'185 1'705 2'044 1'322 2'152 2'722 988 827 1'113 1'503 Total telephone subscribers Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 1'071 34.78 60 67.71 21.90 13.63 6.85 10 50.50 2'499 14.37 40 2.87 2'423 20.99 1'940 33.08 11'925 17.82 75 173.52 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.83 22'617 36.95 289 0.58 37 31.55 15 14.35 22.66 12.08 649 9.22 1'652 43.06 31 29.52 6.83 8.23 18'512 23.07 113 25.36 Effective teledensity 2002 27.44 109 1'284.77 15.74 20.28 29.56 4'073 15.11 2.R.72 7'326 24.89 120 0.29 20.92 23.87 18.82 45 12.48 3 1.46 302 0.32 36.69 14'387 22.71 2'987 23.04 13.10 142 9.66 53.62 229 5.04 92 2.62 19.14 83 0.00 110 0.29 73'691 42.06 11.74 34.97 6 0.88 15'033 29.78 12'363 28.1.23 170 12.

92 164'588 49.64 83 32.88 30.30 5 0.77 10'529 103.45 24.12 692 25.53 74 1.86 1'498 36.85 9'913 65.65 67.95 40'870 40.13 42.21 649 101.20 28 330.02 21.15 109 2.08 200 5.1.88 20.39 1'356 100.42 328 5.82 565 32.72 55.61 123 23.33 37 3.37 77 10.18 29 60.83 25.88 52 2.70 11.38 22.36 30 1.05 53.26 21. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-6 .39 65.81 27.56 13'911 56.72 3 15.60 13 0.15 18.11 307 10.16 260 1.96 25.00 31.56 3 3.78 1'599 47.58 710 12.38 110 0.60 39.64 31.25 11 1.78 Effective teledensity 2002 21.01 38 38.35 54.91 25.95 36.54 936 31.68 28.25 4'366 81.50 84.36 50.08 104 1.06 10 0.14 81 4.14 129 0.72 2'581 74.11 33 42. Kitts and Nevis St.49 1'454 42.72 677 55.10 66 82.30 254 3.39 18 25.59 25 GDP per capita (US$) 2002 11'180 3'264 2'939 4'413 4'064 5'125 6'852 3'478 4'732 3'611 4'348 6'486 3'597 4'988 6'207 3'977 3'870 3'957 6'252 7'580 3'812 4'902 8'163 7'571 4'404 7'450 4'201 7'166 3'640 5'105 6'244 Total telephone subscribers Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 14'509 39.71 10 3.22 12'286 121.53 37.64 65 40.83 47.15 21'405 55.46 53 24.15 4'165 95.45 17.72 1'618 69.05 20 4.41 8'326 36.97 41 38.95 27.22 9'305 36.87 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St. Basic indicators Population Total Density (M) (per km2) 2002 2002 36.90 687 52.50 31.05 180 0.07 311 23.

01 54.14 54'126 133.40 37.75 84.70 36.17 80'145 141.07 64.60 76.68 81 8.37 125 5.72 77 5.29 3 3.95 51.91 7.66 72.52 626 3.59 564 84.14 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.67 941 0.44 78.18 7'242 139.26 910 127.80 12'884 124.10 89.66 3 8.80 79.35 37'005 164.93 4'214 106.74 845.36 82.56 83.94 15 4. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.56 40.29 828 185.27 Effective teledensity 2002 48. Basic indicators Population Total Density (M) (per km2) 2002 2002 0.33 49.87 31.34 46 27 21 122 33 4 GDP per capita (US$) 2002 8'629 20'230 25'064 15'442 11'399 9'500 23'681 12'447 23'417 14'194 32'033 25'314 24'057 16'613 24'122 12'084 24'014 26'617 31'041 15'619 21'024 31'324 10'014 15'140 47'255 15'249 9'839 25'866 13'940 14'832 42'149 11'800 28'634 20'894 11'020 16'091 26'864 36'738 12'471 19'944 26'369 36'223 27'089 5'388 686 15'633 2'312 12'821 15'174 Total telephone subscribers Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 76 97.98 21.74 452 102.52 43.74 5'240 125.31 3'522 100.94 20 7.58 71.55 68.09 72'514 121.40 1'200'743 124.28 176 22.65 67.80 83.21 14 59.49 42 59.84 10'403 127. Source: ITU.32 95.22 12 3.49 55'599 116.36 339 0.86 13'256 128.89 78.93 106.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.09 241 288.16 97 0.06 3'615.55 14 10.62 40.24 132 58.56 58.76 23'169 117.47 35.32 86.87 63.18 30 6'096.41 92.44 18'555 0.16 6'099 2.25 62 82. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.00 225 65. A-7 .04 113'763 137.64 182 67.80 1'709 72.62 24.56 9'434 142.98 78.45 93.35 61 31.88 4'975 126.64 110 0.66 10'228 150.13 326'999 113.54 94.25 90.17 84.1.84 2'677 134.05 62.04 14'528 162.97 84'575 143.60 484 2.96 796.71 62.00 99 40.41 3 0.93 57 6.40 1'253 16.63 5.41 484 122.45 14.90 106.53 82.79 6'390 0.24 8'179 152.54 231 11.42 88.15 69.98 7'183 157.06 63.97 807.02 83 6.37 31 961.45 172 0.61 84.45 11'166 153.25 22'064 136. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.74 64.53 69. see the technical notes.20 393 0.93 2'250'220 59'416 546'078 882'776 733'975 27'975 36.27 626 10.64 300 56.44 337 47.31 23 0.36 97 0.79 49.98 63. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.91 74.46 187 127.50 248 79.61 53 4.94 152'267 119.36 64.71 449 155.92 31'811 101.59 143 58.83 14'727 133.65 444 72.08 176 19.34 112 0.

06 237.0 2.51 11.2 2.46 1.7 0.2.0 6.84 542.2 18.3 9.14 274.3 0.74 14.0 6.6 64.27 83. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.1 9.5 1.0 1.0 15.8 0.0 1.23 11.8 13.3 327.7 2.8 682.6 1.1 10.4 18.5 20.1 0.5 274.54 22.3 26.47 68'312.48 5.26 101.3 1.03 0.6 5.67 336.9 2.70 56.53 38.7 342.04 14.1 18.51 62.28 6.2 14.70 327.4 7.38 22.0 23.9 0.5 Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants CAGR (%) CAGR (%) 1997-2002 2002 1997-2002 6.54 9.2 3.76 35.0 0.49 -5.32 35.9 353.6 24.34 4.5 0.18 16.5 11.5 73.9 28.6 161.4 2.37 3.6 0.6 51.20 22.2 55.15 6.5 6.89 5.0 3.7 0.15 10.0 8.0 336.28 7.41 16.6 13.6 1. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.5 0.1 1.1 4.5 0.1 0.14 3.0 2.4 702.4 3.3 1.92 19.80 5.90 9.6 3.53 31.0 0.0 0.0 3'655.0 0.35 5.32 4.1 3'929.8 2.2 -3.2 224.8 11.84 22.0 7'750.9 25.3 0.4 9.8 2.6 1.64 9.4 0.06 38.3 1.9 3.83 12.7 0.49 671.2 7.13 224.75 0.0 6.7 1.05 59.1 0.7 4.D.0 3.6 1.R.3 12.70 7.83 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.73 -0.4 6.8 38.37 73.53 16.7 0.98 16.27 17.4 0.7 0.8 7.0 1.4 16.1 542.2 6.17 0. Main telephone lines Total (000s) 2002 85.6 0.9 0.7 0.02 8.6 3.3 2.8 0.6 1.0 1'681.6 2.70 5.80 648.8 61.0 0.61 2.53 15.84 22.23 22.7 43.75 61.46 6.7 12.9 1.8 1.7 19.78 87.1 0.0 1.58 3'655.26 6.5 7.6 2.2 14.0 41'420.1 35.9 16.57 41'420.6 11.47 5.0 21.1 2.65 8.1 0.0 923.0 6.5 2.47 6.0 62.04 10.1 0.02 0.60 3'929.8 0.0 13.4 -1.58 9.07 2.23 -4.20 3.0 7.4 0.0 5.0 3.3 5.1 1.3 1.98 7'750.6 18.73 161.0 11.18 706.9 68'329.0 0.84 64.2 1.6 671.2 130.2 87.82 0.6 6.0 0.1 4.5 13.3 0.47 51.8 0.1 56.07 128.4 16.8 0.61 923.50 64.2 4.41 171.8 35.35 9.0 328.34 11.3 14.0 11.7 1.19 702.9 1.0 10.82 287.5 0.6 22.8 14.2 1. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.4 648.6 9.19 2.5 Subscriber lines Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 85.5 2.46 342.35 682.7 9.0 83.6 31.6 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-8 .7 0.0 0.90 353.6 59.0 5.50 4.5 7.1 2.3 0.12 28.4 0.7 287.3 24.5 1.7 0.4 2.4 8.6 0.4 0.9 128.5 1.32 6.4 0.67 -3.3 22.13 5.2 0.3 2.05 12.0 11.22 -3.1 3.8 237.8 6.5 706.24 1'670.8 2.0 64.R.1 19.2 1.4 110.8 10.7 19.9 0.27 26.7 18.12 17.0 6.9 0.2 8.3 22.70 13.78 15.1 2.7 171.2 8.2 0.7 2.0 0.1 394.2 17.23 11.65 0.57 14.4 1.03 394.32 59.65 328.0 2.9 9.17 23.89 130.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 1.92 7.27 6.9 3.

1 6.0 9.5 11.73 2.1 1.5 0.2 1'148.5 5.1 29.9 11.34 97.8 12.73 2'045.1 15.73 17.9 14.0 10'833.9 23.7 35.3 21.76 6.7 6.3 78.0 6'499. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.7 24.35 78.0 11.2 6.69 7'522.81 12'200.40 5.71 -0.R.2 444.20 7.7 4.0 8.1 27.76 902.3 12.0 11.48 300.35 1.80 -4.7 16.91 10.8 6.2 5.4 322.44 5.69 2.0 7.74 2.9 28.9 4.6 9.5 9.84 121.9 4.3 560.17 4'171.3 2'493.2 36.81 5.0 1.8 1.3 7.0 10.0 17.6 2.26 2.0 2'868.04 28.6 11.48 883.6 11.7 8.4 25.0 542.5 7.67 38'810.5 Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants CAGR (%) CAGR (%) 1997-2002 2002 1997-2002 20.2 214'420.0 11.14 20.3 6.12 2. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-9 .0 574.0 23.1 7.6 11.7 10.4 9.2 6.97 674.8 38'810.74 10.13 6'466.9 1.04 4.0 13.29 1'148.50 5.1 10.2 18.71 10'833.0 16.6 27.94 5.66 27.66 19.77 2.35 2'099.1 2'099.6 17.9 902.70 273.85 374.6 4.8 11.2 11.2 563.32 7.0 6.9 374.3 4.0 7'766.6 5.04 14.9 16.66 444.0 27.4 5.15 7.1 20.1 10.0 6.7 28.65 3'310.0 6.1 10.0 18'914.61 3.90 5.60 -0.66 7.90 7'430.4 6.9 4'215.1 9.4 6.3 23.32 2'868.6 3.4 23.8 4.13 5.4 1'127.34 11.9 6.8 2'967.0 1'426.32 15.54 909.1 1.0 667.2 6.6 3.2 11.2 1'766.29 8.5 12.4 7.35 4.17 7.14 1'908.4 19.02 7.3 16.9 5.2 4.5 8.4 6.99 14.3 13.9 3.8 19.0 4.38 574.3 3.8 3.67 24.32 560.48 14.0 883.5 2'081.2 8.6 273.27 393'067.90 846.61 6.04 3.4 Subscriber lines Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 220.1 909.7 4.5 9.27 3.2 1.0 1'908.26 4'310.7 4.9 2.04 667.7 97.66 11.15 322.6 3.9 22.0 7.4 301.28 -0.1 4.5 4.2 35'500.9 9.0 5.3 16.5 846.28 2'967.7 2.10 542.2 17.0 16.4 121.8 10.4 674.1 7.2 29.3 11.4 18.3 16.69 2'493.5 14.22 4.3 22.5 10.05 80.9 21.5 24.67 1'139.69 24.66 -1.20 4.2 70.8 23.9 4.4 27.0 7.04 1'411.6 394'271.2.3 5.99 214'420.0 4'844.5 10.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.77 70.2 7.66 2'082.2 15.5 12'200.05 11.2 4.9 11. Main telephone lines Total (000s) 2002 220.3 -2.8 15.6 3.4 16.5 7.43 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.74 18'735.0 22.94 5.7 10.8 14.1 3'310.94 563.8 -0.45 11.9 23.97 0.4 10.4 7.0 6.8 12.9 13.11 11.54 2.8 10.10 4.6 5.48 1.0 13.7 23.11 10.0 80.35 34.1 4.2 7'430.6 16.0 16.24 35'054.4 36.9 11.8 4.

7 3.7 12.95 5.7 11'400.91 1'442.58 475.04 -0.1 325.5 2'841.2 30.11 0.6 5.83 912.39 366.0 29.39 -0.6 32.7 31.4 21.0 3'675.88 2.51 3'317.70 227.2 11.9 6.6 26.6 8.03 6.5 8.0 24.6 2.05 1'704.4 27.1 2.5 0.25 325.2 13.35 4'741.5 27.88 2.0 3'317.03 -1.5 50.37 -2.88 660.1 19.2 41.65 1.6 8.1 946.1 12.0 1'825.3 12.20 11'400.1 14.4 4.2 678.5 4.2 3.3 11.0 25.9 11.00 4.2 27.5 -1.1 19.0 23.88 31.5 4.72 9.4 701.0 27.5 51.0 12.7 2.2 -2.0 935.39 8.7 1'442.96 3.3 5.5 21.4 12.7 25.0 32.0 3'467.6 4.5 23.0 1'038.1 0. Main telephone lines Total (000s) 2002 8'009.9 4'669.8 4.65 3'309.0 2.60 701.8 6.98 5.2.05 5.5 31.04 1'038.9 Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants CAGR (%) CAGR (%) 1997-2002 2002 1997-2002 3.39 21.7 33.06 32.06 1.1 24.6 0.29 3'467.5 14.2 23.97 3'388.72 4.4 Subscriber lines Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 8'009.0 26.8 660.1 0.3 30.33 327.96 2'841.0 6.9 2.12 3.6 8.5 3'666.2 14'941.8 66'305.82 0.67 8.23 2.8 31.4 0.6 23.11 678.00 50.7 475.8 11.47 -5.4 36.39 3.0 11.4 31.0 31.7 26. Kitts and Nevis St.8 19. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-10 .3 150.91 3.41 25.51 11.20 -1.7 10.6 20.6 8.82 23.3 35.3 36.47 33.2 21.5 50.1 14.27 -1.0 35.9 327.1 14.0 29.04 4.1 33.37 142.85 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.6 366.3 11.0 19.6 227.03 14'975.4 32.98 946.6 38.1 30.9 8.7 26.3 26.83 13.05 4.9 19.5 27.27 65'616.8 -2.

9 1'091'575.99 41.8 57.35 -2.9 58. see the technical notes.40 5.1 51.7 52.8 2.38 88.6 52.77 1.8 329'462.4 3.0 45.4 4.7 1.81 -1.09 3.2 40.8 3'831.1 12'252.21 5'768.2 46.3 -0.88 -0.7 422'597.0 186'232.86 19'256.75 175.7 0.0 46.72 0.0 1'975.78 2.70 34.6 176.58 0.2 25.44 0.38 -1.67 176.1 68.68 3.4 48.6 49.06 4'389.4 57.3 1.54 1.5 293'448.5 1'927.5 1.9 41.8 23.9 355.9 2'725.44 3.34 30'994.6 40.7 39.94 1'746.29 0.2 2.0 2.99 12'900.0 3'100.56 175.6 17.47 0.7 53.86 1.6 0.1 207. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.0 5'120.2 20.38 239.0 1.35 -1.6 20.3 6'579.2 1.26 2'295.2 5'419.9 4.42 3'686.73 11.0 68.3 562'668.56 3.6 2.1 48.30 446.46 23'786.4 1.4 51.1 49.3 6.0 2.1 Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants CAGR (%) CAGR (%) 1997-2002 2002 1997-2002 4.63 1'042'466.9 50.48 45.1 5.4 -0.8 1.0 55.78 1'700.7 8.25 2'413.5 64.2 1'010.2 53.4 50.8 3.4 21'820.0 4'354.2 2.69 23'146.8 40.8 56.39 126.5 31.1 2.5 3.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.28 1'093.96 877.3 3.0 56.7 46.1 43.0 1'765.2 4.38 -0.9 17.3 52. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.5 12'660.44 3.2 5.80 11.4 4.5 61.1 2.8 13.7 34'898.0 3'343.97 16'363.4 25.25 4'077.13 0.1 73.0 126.45 39'795.1 5.5 53'720.4 51.4 90.8 1.8 188.79 207.97 49.6 33'928.88 -0.77 34.0 10'590.0 481.1 21. Main telephone lines Total (000s) 2002 38.2 40.2 6.6 43.9 79.31 129.4 1'093.1 0.1 61.0 48.42 2.21 -0.02 515'470.61 39.0 71'149.9 0.55 -0.4 176.0 3'700.62 4.22 5'835.0 3'988.0 42.3 47.8 53.6 3.4 3.2 5.1 52.4 62.0 27'142.1 56.61 7.28 1.8 39.5 28.6 55.69 36.57 0.61 149.2 21.3 50.31 0.2 49.1 44.80 3.4 1.0 13'099.8 59.86 1.2 0.7 22'356.6 48.86 1.1 48.0 48.0 19'962.17 3.3 10'004.53 187'508.6 175.4 291'727.43 3'076.8 7.8 433'647.7 31.34 1. Source: ITU.0 23'257.63 481.8 35.6 294'068.4 133.13 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.0 2.75 3'295.0 73.3 50.6 1.13 -1.5 28.7 -1.57 0.8 2.8 58.4 63.3 65.35 31'631.9 74.2 48.94 3.3 0.36 3'841.1 492. A-11 .25 2'884.89 -0.5 65.0 42.0 65.2 53.3 4.83 1.24 3.80 1'783.90 2. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.2 2.4 2.0 48.06 1.4 Subscriber lines Total per 100 (000s) inhabitants 2002 2002 37.10 2.8 1.7 42.9 20.2 43.2.0 47.0 52.2 20'595.34 40.0 52.3 11.34 7'852.8 65.9 26. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.77 10'174.4 26.07 1.13 60'770.0 5'412.

1 … 1'247.0 93.7 26.5 99.0 6.0 32.1 2.9 37.8 2.4 199.6 … 3. 1.2 75.4 240.6 9.0 .6 76. 8.9 234.7 … 39.5 -1.4 317.4 .8 … 462.0 8. >10 4.4 63.8 … … … 6.0 9.0 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-12 .6 1..6 704.1 4.2 12. 9.2 97.8 96.8 11.3 979.. 4.8 243.4 -10.4 92.8 78.0 -6.2 37.8 2.7 46.5 4.7 … 96.7 74.0 138.3 17. .3 77.2 881.0 … … 3'869.1 1'720.6 50.6 11.4 67.2 6.3 … … 94.4 12..3 814.4 92.4 16. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.8 49.7 3...0 91.7 -2..4 3.9 -6.6 181.4 29.0 27.9 55.7 21.2 46.3 179.3 70.3 … 43'068.5 .2 5'294.6 … … … 93. .5 … 79.2 … … … … … … 302.0 0.0 … … 12.7 61.2 8.4 13.3 1. .0 99.2 7.8 -35.5 37.0 444.1 94.0 -26.4 -7.0 … 2.5 … … 88..8 68..1 85.7 9.2 -11.0 280.3 … … 48.4 … … … … 43. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.7 1'648.0 10.6 -13. Waiting list Waiting list for telephone lines CAGR (000s) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 5.0 5.1 109.5 88.4 73.2 86.9 … … … 110.R.3 57.2 0.9 17. 0.7 97.5 53.0 6.0 … … … 45.9 78.6 0.2 … 3.3 82..0 … … … … … … 42.6 78..5 .6 1'115..8 49.7 -10.8 … … 10.0 38.7 9.0 787.R..5 … 6.3 138.6 214.3 … … 74.3 65.3 113.2 90.1 432.1 -35.0 … … 0.4 -20.1 4..5 8.1 11.9 3. 1.4 47.8 82.0 … 5.3 90.9 2.6 0..9 … 10.7 22.7 169.2 … 154.2 31. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.9 13.9 134.7 … 0.1 37.5 95.3 91.6 . .2 165.4 … 5.0 0.2 2.3 90.0 52.3 -9..6 95.7 … 43.7 0.6 .0 158.8 44.2 4.8 … 99.8 645.3.9 1.8 30.1 16.7 Satisfied demand (%) 2002 26.3 64.9 320.0 21.8 60'822.7 206.2 … 71.3 24.3 57.8 77.7 2.7 64.5 243...5 … … … 2'705..0 1.9 94.8 61.0 Total demand (000s) 2002 325.6 -23. 0.6 6.8 86. 3.2 8.8 -12.7 5. .5 … … -0.0 64.4 230...7 83.3 108..2 95.4 5'577.3 5.5 -1.1 0.8 … 1.4 17..D.2 1.2 38.6 … 16.4 435.8 -11.. >10 2.2 … 93.5 127.7 3.0 0.6 145.8 10...3 429.0 85..5 16.6 2.0 >10 >10 .6 .5 60.5 13.1 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.1 16.4 499. 0.1 75.4 .6 97.1 27.1 9.1 … 0.8 173.3 ....0 80.8 -5.9 1..8 -4.9 -35.0 23.1 107.7 -6.3 446..8 Waiting time (years) 2002 >10 0..6 … 360.2 6.7 .

1 … 1'440.3 2.4 50.5 168.2 0.7 153.9 180.1 . Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-13 .2 .0 200.7 1.8 6.6 0.1 -19.4 … 39'010..8 … 7. Waiting list Waiting list for telephone lines CAGR (000s) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 45. 0.9 73.4 … 95.7 13'680.1 … … … … … … 50.1 705.9 182.0 302.8 … 8'940.1 83.5 … 156.0 83. .7 7'636.1 -12.5 2'962.0 142.5 ..0 98.9 … … … 50.3 6.9 … 100.0 727.8 1.3 . 4.0 4'894.R..9 -1.7 4'905.6 143.2 72.6 99.8 .9 2'636.7 7..2 50. 3.5 17.9 94.6 … 259.8 -18.8 542.0 77.5 … … … … 2'400.6 1'277.0 1'140.3 36..6 175.8 413.0 5.4 161.5 2'947.3 94.1 … 4'757.9 2'250. >10 0...5 124.2 1.9 99.1 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.4 93.1 28.2 -31.8 … 1'132.3.0 664.8 206.3 450.6 6.0 84.0 1'480.0 675.3 0.4 89.3 41'309.7 -66.5 -7.8 92.0 4..3 91.6 Waiting time (years) 2002 3.0 15.2 2.7 1. 1.2 5.6 -16. 0.8 12'992.0 … … … 1'037..7 -31.7 10.7 -6. 1.8 … 98.6 -1.2 69.0 -10.5 108...3 99.5 95.6 … 99..1 -30..5 2.3 … 1'799.0 … 99. >10 >10 1...1 73.6 0.7 613.4 3.0 41..1 ..4 0.0 -46.2 … 7'210.4 33.0 3'014.5 99..8 29.2 2.9 -19.7 1.6 -7.8 257.5 341.2 97.8 -20.6 24.4 .2 … 88..5 2'635.3 64.9 0.2 15.6 85. 1.5 -26.7 8.4 -61.7 91.8 1...0 168.4 89.0 … 190'561.8 Satisfied demand (%) 2002 69..0 2'805.4 4.1 0.6 27.0 -24.0 -1.7 … 99.6 .6 710.6 96.0 -11.8 5.2 111.7 -2. .7 571.5 283.0 607.9 101. 3.4 513.0 71.8 410.5 342.6 97. 3. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.2 2'158.6 48.4 94.5 3.7 98.0 3'308.1 -10.5 2.1 … … … 29.1 72.3 … … … 800.7 1'282.0 97.2 7'838.1 15.7 0.5 99..8 116.6 13.0 -0.2 ...2 10.0 732.0 14.1 … … … … 75.2 >10 >10 .0 -44..0 38..5 89.1 1.3 -19.6 33.5 7.7 … 10. 3.2 0.1 0.7 -6.7 … 86.8 … 90.7 -27.4 77.0 145.0 .4 395.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.7 5.0 … 51.8 Total demand (000s) 2002 318.7 19'057..2 … … … 619.8 5'809.3 18'097.3 8.2 1'256.1 0.1 … … … 25'698.2 .2 42.3 1'174.

6 … 479.0 11.0 … 98.7 … … … … 80.2 99...8 340.4 7.4 72.8 … 109.2 715.8 1'825.6 96.0 501..9 1'409.6 3'391.5 .3 … 99. .2 .8 4'735.1 73.6 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.0 … … … … 40.5 953.9 4.5 32.6 -30.8 -20.. 1..5 -10.9 … 65.. 0.. 0..0 99.4 2.0 -49.... Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-14 ..8 … … 96.3.4 … 3'499.5 100. 0. 0.8 -28. .6 … 1.0 … … 3..8 92.1 68.0 99..0 … 89.9 96.7 … 229..1 -44.1 23. .3 -24.8 0...9 -47.0 3.0 10.1 … 95.6 .8 97..1 … 33.0 406.0 939.5 … … 97.1 392. 0.1 -42.6 .7 … … … 76.5 1'449.1 … 100.6 Waiting time (years) 2002 0.3 0.0 -100..3 -27.0 29. Waiting list Waiting list for telephone lines CAGR (000s) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 19..6 .6 98. Kitts and Nevis St.1 14.1 946..3 1'053.8 98.7 … … … … … … 6.2 7.4 .0 100. .0 25. .3 1.5 … 48'149.5 93..7 … 11'901.0 … … 5'191.5 Satisfied demand (%) 2002 98.6 … … 335.0 49.4 15.5 … 740..0 … 102.4 0.4 99.5 … 99.9 .0 … 99. ... ....1 98.7 32.9 … 23.9 2.4 10.4 … … … 2'200.1 72.1 30...0 3'700.0 -28.2 13. 0.1 -11. . ..6 3'674..6 -44.6 0.8 Total demand (000s) 2002 8'102.3 91.

9 99.6 0.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.5 2'790.3 Satisfied demand (%) 2002 … 100.3 … … 19'962.8 0..0 99.6 6'579.1 24'389..6 10.4 24'008..6 0.0 100.0 100.8 209'325.5 36'598.2 97.3 -19.0 100.0 … 100.4 1.9 10'094.5 2.7 20'599. 0.0 … … 99.0 100.5 2'323.5 4'629.0 13'099..6 0.4 3'831..6 9'167.2 5'419.2 207.0 100.0 100.5 7..8 12. .0 1.4 176.1 -27.0 100.8 1'765..3 100.8 188.9 -4.2 .8 16'766.0 100.. .5 -54.0 99..7 131.2 .4 10'004. ..4 -5.1 3.5 1'927.5 100.3 274'626.3 176.7 -7.7 4..0 100.7 … … 25...3.2 -100.1 … … … 48.7 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan. see the technical notes.0 100.0 100. Source: ITU. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.0 … … 134.9 Waiting time (years) 2002 . .1 12'609.3 8.0 … … 100. .6 64.1 … … 7.0 0.0 100.3 0. .9 -12.6 -13.0 100. .7 4.0 0.9 100.0 100..9 355.9 330'999.5 9.4 100.6 -37.8 .8 -10. A-15 .4 3'406..4 2.2 … … … 1.4 851'569.0 100.0 100.7 Total demand (000s) 2002 … 10'590....5 -100..0 98. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.0 100. 0..1 495.9 97.0 3'343.0 5'420..1 34'898.3 552'035..0 97..0 4'380.9 2'725.1 … … … … … … 32. 0.3 7... Waiting list Waiting list for telephone lines CAGR (000s) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … … … 0.4 25. 1. .3 3.2 3.7 … 53'720.0 52.2 5.0 100.6 33'928.9 -9..0 99.0 186'232.4 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.0 3.2 1'010. .0 100.0 … … 100.9 1. .4 1'094. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.0 100.0 3'988.6 3'700..0 71'149..0 100..0 … … … … … … 1. .0 … … 27'142.8 88..0 99.1 -29.4 11'785.0 23'257.8 -3.0 100.0 481.1 0.3 44.

7 58.3 32.0 169.5 76. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.0 100.0 32.8 76.0 51.0 54.0 100.0 … 36.0 96.1 4.3 … … … 126.0 95.6 104.2 … 64.0 100.7 … … 79.0 … 73.2 43.4 70.3 84.0 80.0 100.0 24.0 100.9 28.0 100.5 69.0 84.0 88.9 Faults per 100 main lines per year 2002 … 48.0 46.0 96.0 … … 53.0 100.9 60.7 94.4 68.9 69.4 … 88.0 100.8 42.R.0 100.2 100.0 100.9 74.4 … … 90.0 100.0 67.3 … … 17.0 100.7 Main telephone lines Automatic Digital (%) (%) 2002 2002 100.1 96.8 … 105.0 … 6.0 100.0 … 89.2 … … … … 62.5 100.4 80.7 97.0 99.0 62.5 … 126.1 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.0 35.6 49.3 … 83.0 55.7 … 94.7 100.1 100.0 90.0 7.9 80. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.7 78.0 90.0 220.0 … … 55.1 100.2 67.0 70.0 77.2 44.0 … 100.0 100.0 … … 100.8 90.4 … 70.8 55.0 81.6 … 66.0 100.5 82.4 100.1 66.2 70.0 100.2 … 87.0 100.0 82.0 87.9 59.6 99.5 … 177.0 99.0 58.0 79.0 … 97.3 83.0 6.4.2 … … 84.0 100.6 59.2 … … 81.0 65.6 Residential (%) 2002 … 91.9 … … 72.3 69.6 84.0 20.3 … 96.0 96.4 85.6 … … … … … 17.4 52.5 65.0 100.0 100.0 … 100.9 … 52.0 100.0 100.8 42.3 63.7 78.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 … 100.8 … 81.7 87.0 80.0 72.R.0 100.D.0 100.0 90.0 83. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 … … 68.2 … … 66.0 76.0 100.3 68.0 80.0 … 100.0 81.0 100.0 93.9 79.5 97.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.5 … 94.0 100.0 100.9 70.8 … 25.1 100.0 … … 100.0 100.0 100. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-16 .4 70.0 … 80.5 60.5 … 94.0 100.0 100.7 65.1 67.6 82.0 100.7 … 78.0 65.6 … 4.1 83.1 85.0 92.0 75.2 81.9 83.0 83.0 54. Local telephone network Capacity used (%) 2002 … 95.0 100.4 99.0 … 19.0 … … 60.7 100.0 35.0 100.0 100.3 81.5 83.0 … 100.4 100.0 76.0 99.0 100.0 … … … 84.0 69.0 79.0 91.7 … … … … 60.1 85.0 100.

9 … 96.0 60.0 100.7 78.4 … … 20.0 100.1 86.0 … 19.6 9.3 100.9 72.3 100.9 87.0 3.0 99.0 … 45.0 100.4 70. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-17 .5 100.2 6.6 86.6 … 39.7 100.0 56.0 100.0 81.0 … … … 48.0 26.4 70.0 100.9 87.0 73.4 92.0 100.0 100.7 … 77.7 Faults per 100 main lines per year 2002 57.0 26.4 63.0 100.0 71.0 90.0 … 88.0 50.0 … 100.0 100.3 68.2 97.0 99. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.1 … 79.2 42.0 100.0 96.0 99.1 86.0 … 100.2 89.0 78.5 69.0 100.3 100.0 100.0 98.6 81.9 87.5 46.7 … 46.8 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.0 89.0 66.0 … 88.4 … 88.0 100.4 100.6 … 83.0 100.9 96.0 90.0 80.0 81.8 73.6 8.9 89.2 160.0 99.0 100.6 Residential (%) 2002 94.3 99.0 100.0 100.8 84.8 Main telephone lines Automatic Digital (%) (%) 2002 2002 97.6 8.5 117.4 86.6 … 35.0 75.6 75.0 100.0 99.0 78.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.0 100.0 … … 3.3 82.4 … … 23.2 78.0 56.6 30.0 100.8 100.0 100.8 … 29.8 65.5 90.4.3 … 88.8 86.0 60.0 100.8 73.0 … … 78.1 78.0 45.0 100.1 … 67.7 75.7 73.9 … 70.0 … 99.0 88.2 78.0 87.5 81.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.7 91.3 78.0 … 100.6 83.5 84.3 0.0 100.9 100.0 100.7 91.4 93.5 29.8 42.0 100.8 96.5 … 78.R.0 74.0 100.0 74.1 … 79.8 80.8 91. Local telephone network Capacity used (%) 2002 73.0 80.0 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.2 99.0 100.0 100.0 … 100.3 47.9 67.0 100.4 72.0 100.0 82.3 79.0 90.2 69.5 100.7 10.0 100.0 100.1 74.0 53.0 84.4 87.5 66.0 73.0 20.2 89.0 100.0 100.0 … … 100.5 69.0 100.0 … 70.0 100.5 … 75.0 100.0 51.0 37.6 71.0 100.8 … … 3.7 80.0 96.0 76.0 … 100.6 97.5 96.0 43.0 96.0 100.2 100.4 … 24.0 100.0 77.3 71.5 14.

0 90.0 100.8 1.0 100.8 17.1 85.0 81.1 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.0 100.2 69.4 65.9 60.3 81.7 72.8 38.6 69.0 64.0 100.0 86.0 4.0 100.0 71. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-18 .0 100.0 78.0 100.0 74.2 100.9 … 91.0 81.0 83.0 100.0 100.9 90.0 100.3 80.0 Faults per 100 main lines per year 2002 … 55.1 83.0 65.0 56.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 14.0 74.9 82.4.0 100.0 100.1 68.2 … … 80.0 100.0 100.9 … 73.1 … 71.3 100.0 76.0 100.2 94.0 15.9 … 30.6 98.8 76.0 100. Kitts and Nevis St.0 100.8 … … 82.6 68.0 100.8 … … … 83. Local telephone network Capacity used (%) 2002 94.5 … 75.0 87.0 100.2 74.5 81.0 100.0 40.0 100.2 85.0 73.0 100.2 … 27.0 65.9 Residential (%) 2002 82.0 100.7 76.0 78.8 80.3 … … … 22.0 100.6 60.0 100.0 100.3 100.1 72.0 100.0 85.2 26.0 70.5 89.2 12.0 100.0 100.2 … 25.0 100.0 100.0 … … … … 2.0 100.0 Main telephone lines Automatic Digital (%) (%) 2002 2002 100.0 8.4 … … 82.0 100.6 100.0 … 100.0 100.0 100.7 … … 17.8 67.9 … 76.3 … 16.0 100.0 100.6 75.4 100.0 89.1 55.

0 100.0 100.1 … 81.0 100.5 … 7.3 2.0 100.0 79. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.0 98.0 100. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.1 99.7 100.8 Residential (%) 2002 … 75.0 65.0 100.0 100.9 97.0 63.3 27.2 … … … … … 86.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.8 74.8 100.0 96.0 55.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 … 70.4 81. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.0 99.5 75.0 100.4 10.2 100.0 100.0 96.9 97.5 100.2 73.0 20.4 95.0 73.5 … … … 1.0 63.0 20.3 99.0 100.0 86.0 100.7 100. Source: ITU.1 65.9 100.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.2 7.0 83.4 76.7 … 15. see the technical notes.7 57.0 100.5 71.0 100.7 81.5 8.0 72.2 78.6 70.0 100.6 76.0 100.0 63.0 100.8 … … … 92.6 16.7 78.7 Main telephone lines Automatic Digital (%) (%) 2002 2002 100.0 59.0 … 66.0 100.2 … … 65.2 75.0 100.0 100.4 71.0 69.6 … … … 1.0 97.0 68.4.6 75. Local telephone network Capacity used (%) 2002 … … … 70.0 … 6.2 76.0 100.9 69.0 … 100.0 100.0 100. A-19 .0 69.5 67.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 … … 7.3 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 73.4 11.3 Faults per 100 main lines per year 2002 … 8.0 100.7 73.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 76.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.5 66.0 100.0 100.4 22.1 91.2 97.0 … … 25.7 12.0 100.0 100.8 80.6 88.0 100.0 75.1 … … 83.0 100.0 100.0 5.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.5 88.7 74.0 100.6 73.0 100.0 100.0 100.7 … … … 84. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.9 68.3 75.7 75.0 12.0 95.0 100.6 … … 30.3 … … … … … … 86.7 … 10.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.0 100.0 100.3 11.4 … 99.0 … 78.7 … 71.0 100.0 100.0 100.6 88.0 … … … … 12.0 100.0 100.9 76.0 67.3 98.0 100.5 23.0 … … 72.6 79.

22 4.0 7.4 1'421.88 0.1 … 17.5 … 0.9 32.13 5.7 0.24 0.30 2.23 0.0 6.4 0.6 12.28 0.69 0.6 0.0 … 2.6 2.6 16.9 2'471.0 … … 448.54 1.05 0.11 0.8 1.1 6.07 0.7 7.7 … … 3.0 20.08 0.1 323.1 44. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.0 3.1 4.04 0.45 6.1 0.1 8.0 … … … 5.1 … … … … 5.5.64 0.7 83.3 9.43 0.17 1.52 24.09 0.2 0.03 1.9 1.25 0.06 0.9 … … … … 5.5 4.3 164.04 0.81 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.6 … … … 0.6 1.8 2.63 1. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.47 0.35 0.6 14.3 11.5 48.06 3.3 15.5 12.0 … … 10.8 … … 125.05 1.9 6.2 % households with a telephone 2002 … … 1.45 1.01 0.3 25.10 0.3 3.84 0.82 0.3 3.06 1.0 7. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.7 … 1.0 3.7 30.0 2.70 0.R.5 3.3 … … … 1.8 407.14 0.4 … … … 1.8 2.26 0.8 4.44 0.3 17.8 2.2 3.7 28.9 14.9 … … … … 6'293.8 190.2 9.16 2.56 0.5 618.6 192.40 0.3 1.32 0.8 … … … … … … 246.2 … … … … 12.02 0.23 6.3 2'622.2 12.4 0.2 2.8 1.57 2.0 … … 2.16 0.7 … 3.28 1.7 188.60 3.5 4.8 29.6 1.0 … … 10.6 1. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-20 .00 0.8 2.66 1.90 5.4 0.35 0.04 0.3 4.60 6.6 18.9 16.13 3.R.9 0.3 0.06 0.4 34.06 1.9 1.16 1.2 0.8 … … 357.4 7.42 7.73 0.3 1.9 13.3 0.9 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.46 0.1 0.29 0.9 97.67 0.0 4.6 424.8 0.9 38.0 5.08 1.33 0.6 1.21 1.6 0.49 1.4 0.0 … 2.3 0.6 … … … … 19.37 11.8 7.72 0.9 30.51 0.24 0.30 0.10 0.5 4.5 247.8 … … 1.23 1.77 0.37 0.06 0.6 1.60 0.3 7.9 5.87 0.26 0.7 … 4.5 40.4 … … 31.26 2.8 1.2 … … … 0.9 … 17.16 4.4 2.6 45.9 … … … 2.6 0.7 101.D.00 0.5 68.8 … … … 2'006.3 2.03 1.30 0.6 0.7 142.05 0.6 … … … … … 17.93 4.39 2.0 11.9 … … … … … … 0.04 0. Teleaccessibility Residential main lines Total per 100 (000s) households 2002 2002 … … 842.2 1.0 21.2 Public telephones Total per 1'000 As % of (000s) inhabitants mainlines 2002 2002 2002 2.56 0.39 0.5 0.60 0.5 15'954.01 0.9 13.8 402.2 0.96 0.7 0.4 0.4 8.43 0.08 1.0 8.73 1.8 2.2 167.11 1.87 1.84 6.13 0.3 15.2 2.6 2.20 0.0 17.

05 0.6 42.54 0.9 50.6 1'340.R.2 2'432.9 36.8 228.3 9'760.3 … … 17.6 2.4 77.65 0.5 7.37 1.8 86.63 0.31 1. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-21 .1 173'958.00 3.94 3.4 306.1 67.0 380.8 46.9 4.50 1.6 38.0 80.14 0.20 1.0 … … 310'811.1 9'324.7 558.19 0.0 … … 50.03 1.5 333.21 0.9 18.02 0.91 0.0 3.25 0.77 2.68 0.5 20.45 1.43 2.6 31.5 83.4 0.8 60.0 67.5 39.0 2'511.37 0.98 1.4 11.00 7.3 97.72 1.21 1.0 2'320.75 0.7 11.30 0.72 2.00 2.52 4.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.0 449.8 2.1 9.92 2.9 0.5 56.1 45.2 31.07 0.6 54.16 0.6 14.0 213.8 9.1 51.81 2.3 5.2 66.3 45.1 800.0 4'484.8 2.8 119.4 179.5 37.00 0.3 42.6 18.4 15.2 12.34 0.84 1.61 3.97 1.39 0.7 … 58.8 41.27 3.6 2'504.0 74.7 62.0 … … 55.7 12.15 0.9 5.6 61.8 20.3 6'620.3 19.6 … 16.11 0.2 … … … 81.6 5.7 52.6 14'428.0 … 18.18 1.0 … 27.71 0.3 78.0 27'885.0 58.1 19.0 … 57.04 0. Teleaccessibility Residential main lines Total per 100 (000s) households 2002 2002 206.2 225.95 1.9 387.0 5'207.28 0.0 0.3 … 23.8 7.7 0.49 0.7 60.03 1.39 3.9 1.82 0.20 0.8 763.25 0.2 602.06 0.6 51.4 14.3 0.2 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.4 0.8 % households with a telephone 2002 … 37.8 28.0 772.0 … … 15.2 53.86 1.3 2.0 … 41.21 5.71 0.66 1.7 13.9 70.4 1'580.67 4.4 20.00 0.6 492.2 15.78 0.02 0.3 31.4 1.5 33.81 0.2 48.4 47.5 0.5 25.30 2.9 3'802.43 0.9 8.5 51.31 3.8 14.3 7.9 38.87 0.8 521.84 1.6 12.2 67. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.44 0.75 2.43 1.0 38.9 73.9 28.7 32.95 0.00 0.80 3.87 3.59 0.05 1.48 2.4 32.2 70.0 … 90.9 … … 49.9 61.3 1'694.61 3.98 4.5 49.1 613.47 1.78 1.41 0.8 20.9 27'817.51 2.2 25.9 58.92 0.4 53.27 0.49 3.00 7.1 18.4 23.58 0.6 0.8 53.9 … … … 51.5 12'679.4 1'579.63 0.7 1'129.09 6.0 41.9 28.4 1.8 2'193.30 0.4 0.7 67.63 6.90 1.1 7.44 2.1 15.6 9'855.4 207.8 109.93 1.83 5.0 5.4 Public telephones Total per 1'000 As % of (000s) inhabitants mainlines 2002 2002 2002 1.5 0.38 0.67 2.2 1'368.2 8.2 185.45 1.5.39 0.5 18.6 37.5 12.7 0.5 0.3 25.32 0.

2 21.29 1.0 428.4 … 70.2 68.9 22.9 65.71 0.8 256.04 4.34 2.5 1'361.49 0.2 38.0 54.0 45.74 1.96 1.1 6.5 2'515.06 2.4 569.1 12.2 15.8 12.10 0.0 752.44 3.00 0.3 62.4 35.9 44.58 3.92 2.4 0.0 54.80 1.6 78.8 55.4 21.3 … 40.6 3'376.47 1.2 69.4 % households with a telephone 2002 … 42.34 0.6 … … … 0.60 1.50 3.99 1.34 2.17 3.0 96.1 62.82 0.01 2.0 42.9 … … … 2.0 76.3 105.7 1'586.05 5.5 2.8 677.5 0.7 163.49 3.92 5.6 21.6 75.4 59.2 440.0 Public telephones Total per 1'000 As % of (000s) inhabitants mainlines 2002 2002 2002 204.3 62.4 66.0 73.5 … … 34.5 9'690.5 11.0 … … … … … … 2.8 84.0 50'273.11 0.1 3.8 11.90 1.5 … 60.2 261.06 2.6 59.6 74.0 … 69.1 6.5.2 70.0 … … 74.74 1.54 2.4 57.1 2'475.89 4. Kitts and Nevis St.7 1'157.8 53.41 0.2 26.5 0.64 2.3 13.5 … 2'805.45 5.7 58.3 754.7 31. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-22 .7 40.8 0.5 85.7 36.1 75.9 708. Teleaccessibility Residential main lines Total per 100 (000s) households 2002 2002 6'713.5 72.95 3.7 1'868.22 2.48 1.7 … … 12.99 1.5 2.8 59.84 3.08 0.0 … 77.3 … 68.8 2'069.90 2.00 7.22 2.0 … 54.2 … 73.7 204.8 90.33 5.89 2.0 … 80.3 65.87 0.5 294.5 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.76 2.7 … … 356.12 0.29 2.82 0.45 0.53 6.4 11'041.60 2.

8 23'478.29 0.9 2.0 … 96.2 >100 1'148.13 3.6 >100 14'640.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.2 0.0 28.5 3.10 1.28 8.5 733'275.4 … … … 36.4 17.83 2.0 … 97.97 2.6 >100 757.06 2.62 5.9 >100 6'301.2 >100 24'777.4 122.81 84.03 5.1 0.21 0.8 300.03 2.13 3.0 95.3 0.99 1.3 95.6 >100 55'580.69 0.9 93.8 … 95.00 4.5.6 118.51 1. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.85 4.60 0.3 … … 62.63 1.3 103.3 1'384.4 >100 17'233.63 0.7 134.2 9.7 21'009.00 0.00 5.1 Public telephones Total per 1'000 As % of (000s) inhabitants mainlines 2002 2002 2002 … … … 80.60 2.19 455.4 … … 99.00 5.25 4.4 75.24 1.03 1'678.78 0.17 1.22 0.4 >100 2'092.50 1.11 2.1 >100 4'467.85 3.67 1.06 5.7 204'646.39 0.0 515.00 3.5 22.8 1.7 98.8 13.93 1.58 0.3 … … … … 3'678.6 5.4 >100 307.07 0.86 2.0 … 78.56 1.09 0. Teleaccessibility Residential main lines Total per 100 (000s) households 2002 2002 … … 7'942.11 4'353.3 96.3 61.5 120.36 0.7 144.8 … … … … 90.0 … 97.46 3.0 96.7 4'119.0 70.0 … 98.1 0.06 1.0 88.0 … 97.6 22.30 0.8 >100 21'663.00 4.2 89.1 1.44 14'437.8 2.1 15'828.0 11.0 97.3 100.4 164.53 1.2 202.44 1.92 5.0 157.1 0.61 1.1 67.8 >100 373.6 0.6 … 129'111.56 2.25 0.7 225.03 4.9 >100 … … 1'798.00 1.0 90.6 304'044.0 … … … 10.2 3.0 >100 2'233.5 … … … 85.07 0.11 0.6 15.7 95.79 3.4 >100 134.8 9'403.16 0.87 0.0 … … 91.9 84.77 5.5 >100 2'129.36 0.57 1.3 >100 3'561.7 >100 356'235.80 4.51 0.00 0.86 0.2 >100 3'489. Source: ITU.6 0.6 91.1 % households with a telephone 2002 … 97. see the technical notes.3 9.5 0.7 99.3 … … 122.8 37.94 4.72 1.00 2.30 1.2 63.60 3.14 1.6 199'351.2 0.0 1.0 … … … 84.1 714.1 86.52 0.02 0.66 10. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.77 3.33 0.8 >100 12'755.9 >100 9'865.3 1. A-23 .64 2.6 81.3 43.87 1.2 6.8 >100 1'337.33 0.6 110.1 49.17 0.2 1.5 … … 1'385.4 63.8 >100 88.3 0. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note:For data comparability and coverage.9 75.8 24.5 51.2 >100 552.9 89.81 3.95 0.8 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.01 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.95 1.97 3.5 >100 2'512.

4 15 1.06 0.R.02 0.8 … … 31 4.0 32 4.2 330 2.6 156 2.07 0.6 34 2.3 49 1.1 Business Connection Monthly (US$) subs.1 10.8 … … 31 4.5 60 7.02 0.2 Local call (US$) 2002 0.6.3 33. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.8 17.1 … 12.7 4.7 41 3.6 156 2. Telephone tariffs Residential Connection Monthly (US$) subs.14 … 0.2 16.6 28.07 0.1 38 4.7 16 1.04 0.9 3.8 50 1.0 41 1.3 4.8 27.9 27 2.0 27.0 36 0.0 41 3.2 … … … … 72 2.3 … … 29 7.9 1.3 1.5 … … 23 2. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.08 … … 0.2 9.3 110 3.6 9. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.0 43 2.8 97 0.8 30 3.8 91 2.9 54 3.12 0.6 16.03 0.03 0.8 30 3.10 0.4 3.6 185 7.02 0.3 11.5 … … 23 2.02 0.43 0.1 42 5.8 12.2 12 3.06 0.3 77 2.8 41 3.7 27 1.07 0.8 65 1.03 0.03 0.2 31 2.4 5.7 138 4.08 Subscription as % of GDP per capita 2002 9.8 25.R.10 0.6 35 1.3 34 1.4 15 3.6 11 1.03 0.02 0. (US$) 2002 2002 46 5.4 … … 12.03 0.5 61 5.1 12 0.0 18.9 21 9.2 7.1 44 4.02 … … 0.0 … 13.4 2.3 77 2.7 16 1.1 15 2.7 6.9 4.8 97 0.1 75 4.1 … … 16.13 0.8 53.0 9.08 0.0 67 … … … 16 5.02 0.1 75 4.5 30 7.3 … … 29 10.28 0.0 43 2.5 30 4.2 9.7 76 5.1 30 2.1 39 1.02 0.5 29 5.0 36 2.3 110 3.5 91 1. (US$) 1997-02 2002 112 11.3 16.4 3.9 41 1.0 8.01 0.0 4.9 10.7 5.5 123 5.8 66 4.0 67 … … … 16 5.6 39 5.11 0.2 12 3.6 13 0.0 34 7.2 123 7.4 72 2.1 72 0.4 32 3.22 … … 0.9 2.03 0.09 0.7 21 9.3 24 5.0 9.3 29 5.1 44 11.09 0.7 50 1.4 41 3.9 4 0.11 0.8 34 1.09 0.06 0.10 0.2 1.7 280 4.09 0.2 31 2.2 5.03 0.03 0.6 … 12.10 0.9 54 0.6 1.07 0.3 72 5.1 27 2.7 82 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-24 .6 35 3.D.2 11.5 79 5.21 … 0.6 281 18.10 … 0.01 0.7 330 2.3 5.5 61 5.1 30 2.0 … … … … 72 2.6 39 5.3 65 1.3 49 0.5 17.4 43 0.6 12 0.5 3.3 12.8 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.1 42 5.02 0.02 0.4 4.17 0.9 17.0 29.7 76 5.

03 0.3 158 12.0 78 2.04 … 0.5 45 2.4 192 3.5 131 3.05 0.02 0.3 80 4.0 109 10.05 Subscription as % of GDP per capita 2002 0.5 123 1.07 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.6.0 222 2.6 23 6.6 130 4.1 78 2.8 3.4 Local call (US$) 2002 0.6 21 2.3 141 1.2 77 0.9 24 24.06 0.8 2.7 52 0.4 45 2.6 21 1.9 10 5.1 1.3 0.02 0.0 8.0 14 6.20 0.3 113 19.3 113 19.3 35 12.05 0.4 Business Connection Monthly (US$) subs.01 0.0 … … 160 3.0 4.9 52 6.09 0.4 131 1.4 79 5.07 0.04 0.0 … 1.8 200 12.0 54 7.07 0.5 2.03 0.4 134 2.8 3.8 3.13 … … 0.0 2.9 7.03 0.8 0.0 65 11.2 111 1.3 121 7.0 0.5 48 3.3 18 6.06 0.6 16 7.3 356 3 2.7 … 1. (US$) 1997-02 2002 193 5.9 5 4.5 1.5 0.0 56 1.7 3.09 0.6 130 1.2 2.7 39 1.08 0.9 3.2 31 2.2 7.3 80 4.7 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.7 43 14. (US$) 2002 2002 81 0.0 … … 128 2.7 0.5 18 4.03 0.5 7.8 37 6.15 0.5 1.6 1.2 500 9.4 281 3.1 60 6.8 3.0 56 1.0 1.6 20 0.08 0.11 … 0.4 3.8 141 1.8 37 14.02 0.6 2.2 3.2 15.8 134 2.7 4.3 35 30.9 31 5.R.01 0.4 24 2.7 341 3.4 345 … 25 3.9 5 4.4 3.01 0.5 24 2.0 113 5.3 2.5 20 11. Telephone tariffs Residential Connection Monthly (US$) subs.9 1.4 78 0.9 147 14.2 107 0.09 0.9 26.4 5.0 2.1 145 0.02 0.5 3.8 3.8 1.0 1.09 0.22 0.03 0.0 0.1 65 11.7 131 1.4 78 2.9 356 5.6 6.5 214 1.03 0.9 1.06 0.4 118 6.05 0.7 100 6.9 10 5.4 18 10.02 0.7 54 12.1 248 8.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.7 118 3.2 19 1.4 2.0 156 0.05 0.7 341 4.6 100 9.6 31 5.00 0. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-25 .0 149 14.9 0.2 248 12.01 0.1 48 6.6 25 5.0 19 15.6 125 3.5 170 5.9 149 15.02 0.9 12. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.3 84 4.01 0.2 32 2.03 0.4 145 0.6 23 8.

2 … 2.2 1.8 0.6 85 … 291 16.8 3.0 36 2.2 46 4.6 85 8. Telephone tariffs Residential Connection Monthly (US$) subs.9 … … 73 8.7 1.3 … … 68 7.5 25 5.1 78 13.0 375 21.11 0.9 78 13.13 0.15 0.6 13 11.0 36 9.1 56 7.9 50 25.14 0.8 33 2.1 131 11.0 … … 68 6.1 … … 46 8.1 11 4.07 … … 0.6 1.8 1. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-26 .2 Local call (US$) 2002 0.5 36 9.7 133 13.8 1.09 0.5 4.1 132 18.2 1.8 22 28.14 0.4 1.04 0.03 0.10 0.2 56 20.9 97 4.0 36 3.09 Subscription as % of GDP per capita 2002 0.09 0.16 0.8 133 8.5 1.9 … 1.04 0.4 50 6.8 67 7.5 3.2 46 5.5 2.6.9 1.4 1.2 26 7.1 97 9.03 0. (US$) 1997-02 2002 49 8.9 38 … 73 8.09 0.7 57 16.17 0.6 64 8.5 62 7.6 … 2.2 1.07 … 0.02 0.9 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.0 51 8.5 25 5.6 107 9.0 2.2 1.3 13 5.5 121 16.9 107 12.0 51 8.3 1.04 0.4 50 5.3 0.8 26 7.04 0.6 80 8.22 0.10 0.3 50 10.6 80 8.09 0. Kitts and Nevis St.7 85 8.2 2.03 0.6 1.6 2.1 … … 46 14.12 … 0. (US$) 2002 2002 49 4.2 52 5.7 1.9 82 12.5 Business Connection Monthly (US$) subs.13 0.6 64 7.

3 1.2 250 19.03 0.8 95 19.2 28 9.14 … 0.27 0.18 0.8 0.7 49 42.03 0.80 0.1 174 24.9 0.8 0.9 0.12 0.11 0.0 17 7.1 44 14.4 48 4.1 86 13.4 50 24.9 15.15 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.4 0.6 101 11.7 0. Source: ITU.2 4.30 0.12 0.02 0.3 47 4.7 91 63 115 106 96 68 9.4 61 14.6 40 … 53 3.7 3.4 61 16.9 93 10.0 74 8.3 28 9.0 29 17.07 0.7 0.8 71 51 88 79 76 57 6.0 1.4 0.4 599 14.2 123 21.0 42 11.1 49 14.1 0.1 3.10 0.5 0.8 … 0.4 62 15.7 0.5 599 21.12 0.2 28 9.06 0.8 1.2 114 18.6 0. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.2 79 8.6 4.6 1.2 86 8.7 0.5 0.3 191 16.5 56 9.8 10.0 Business Connection Monthly (US$) subs.8 0.9 68 11.1 44 11.5 0.3 95 19.5 0.5 0.6 94 16.2 0.8 1.14 0.0 62 15.4 83 11.1 112 14.4 48 4.05 0.7 112 12.5 86 13.7 0.09 0.02 0.2 123 21. see the technical notes.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.6.9 0.06 0. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.09 0.07 0.0 … … 16.6 101 11.8 95 19.7 0.19 … 0.6 … 0.1 90 11.9 87 13.9 68 11.7 Local call (US$) 2002 0.6 0.4 8.08 0. (US$) 1997-02 2002 119 22.12 0.8 56 9.1 17 4.5 87 19.2 55 32.7 5.5 54 4.1 7.4 191 16.6 95 19.07 0.0 … … 16.6 0.3 114 12. Telephone tariffs Residential Connection Monthly (US$) subs.1 90 11.2 117 8.4 0.2 0. (US$) 2002 2002 69 11.9 110 11.5 12.2 42 23.1 79 16.7 48 16.7 7.7 112 14.6 1. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.11 0.0 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.3 0.2 55 9.2 39 27.5 0.4 4.0 42 11.3 114 12.8 9.15 0.4 50 8.08 0.1 114 11.8 0.2 86 2.0 64 25.13 0.6 0.8 0.9 110 15.0 54 4.6 0.8 … … 53 5.13 0. A-27 .2 79 8.4 0.1 72 43.7 74 8.2 11.03 0.2 4.5 35 12.07 … … 0.3 28 14.10 0.11 Subscription as % of GDP per capita 2002 1.

. 81.3 393 1..4 12..1 66 1.8 75.. 50.85 55..4 170 3..1 79.4 .2 38.. .22 338 7.43 222 6.5 219 3.07 83..1 255 1.1 504 10.1 48....9 ..3 163 1..4 65.27 31.7 32.3 80.6 69. .3 55.2 ...00 62.5 ..9 Population coverage (%) 2002 .59 118.. 83.3 247 9.5 Prepaid subscribers (%) 2002 .49 124.9 86 0. 63.8 ..3 43.5 90 0.36 2 1..0 . .29 84.22 119...8 .....10 41.7 .34 154... 60.0 . 87.75 126. .0 .2 78.6 As % of total telephone subscribers 2002 60..74 142... 68. 74.7 58. .78 93..8 ... . Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D. 95....0 60.. .9 87..81 110.0 15.. 65.6 .22 8.. .69 85.. ..1 91 1.6 96.4 .. .2 88....4 187 0. 85.7 1'239 0.9 34 0.34 154.11 101...0 .9 58. ..R. .5 48...52 66.0 .03 128.3 54.34 1 0..27 176..3 1'608 1. 93.2 77.72 1'027 6.9 13 0..15 187.8 216 8. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P....14 179... ... ..2 13 0.... 70.2 92 4.25 92..5 72..... Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S... .6 380 2..3 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.8 15 0.9 139 1..6 76.0 75.3 98. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-28 . .4 62..3 73.0 .1 870 10.34 64.0 .3 12.69 12'688 1.0 .. 76...1 38...1 17 0.7.. ..7 24.5 ..5 85.3 53 1.50 79.0 75.7 52 0..6 140 1.09 203 3.82 65.04 55 1.. ..2 53 0.0 64.1 .69 173.. 98.1 1'902 2..32 55.....93 79.3 74.4 13..4 60.21 75. 86.0 60.1 22.40 152.9 . .5 560 1.7 62.23 95.49 140. 93.2 80.1 .R.0 . . .. 90. ...6 25.. 38.4 670 1.... 35. .0 42'298 1.0 55.7 51.30 98.74 61. .4 22 0.6 95... .0 411 2.2 11.76 62...5 676 4.. .6 43.3 91..31 553 5.1 5. .2 91..1 71... 89.5 89.8 449 2..0 32 6.3 19..95 101.2 353 3..0 23.3 54.22 70.2 42. 100.59 139.1 77. ..75 76.9 23. . 46. ..1 76.0 55. 94. 77.1 61..5 11'700 5.. .5 61.0 70.89 155.0 50. Mobile cellular subscribers Cellular mobile subscribers Total per 100 CAGR (000s) inhabitants (%) 2002 2002 1997-2002 130 0.. 98.0 93.1 1'075 0.0 84.06 129. .3 6.D.0 79...18 99.. .3 70.1 48 0.07 100 7...7 191 0. ..02 108.. .0 82.9 47. 50..7 10.4 1'325 4.2 111 1.5 50 0.. .. .0 .1 73.0 32..0 .21 110.

.35 365 17. .2 20.68 133.4 1'561 12.0 49.5 85..9 63 6.1 34'881 20.3 11.0 17'609 12. .4 320 9.3 4'495 6.4 75.1 889 13.17 26..91 100. 70. 86....04 48.3 2'598 33. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.48 84.0 49.0 .63 203. ...0 51.. 80.7.4 5'111 23..13 62. ...4 11. 91..2 ....5 61.0 ..7 2'307 8.5 15'201 19.. 91.66 64.8 16'117 26. . .0 96.0 59.3 51.4 47.9 42 14. 79.0 90. 96.0 20.0 60..8 57.4 18 0.62 29.35 55.53 95.0 75.3 380'000 15.7 932 4.38 94. 35.43 146..5 66.2 81.83 81.0 50..30 106.7 1'400 53.97 76.1 27.0 ..06 50.3 37.42 88.2 .0 . 95.26 51.6 400 1. 97.0 88....2 84.. 88...39 49.9 56.93 128.0 99.7 504 5.62 40.1 3 1...0 46.4 6'199 20.6 59.28 87.15 131...7 13.15 89. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-29 .2 16.16 42.8 .4 1'701 20..0 23'374 34.1 5 2.0 65.5 55..7 65.0 54..8 33.5 17.3 2.1 54.3 26..0 43 9.0 38.50 28..2 .2 85.2 .63 142.9 3 3.5 13'814 30. 55..8 52.0 95.0 100.6 49.5 327 4.6 2'187 3.1 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep..3 23.5 74.5 68.6 1 0.0 10 8.87 86.10 400 2.6 1'667 28.R. 70. 91..0 39. 82.0 80.6 82.06 65.38 136..7 .1 48..1 37.5 90..0 76.5 97.66 99.0 88.0 .2 1.2 1'220 22..2 52.89 70.98 3.5 71.7 87 9... 50.3 47.9 42.0 .7 57..91 142..3 As % of total telephone subscribers 2002 79.5 60. . 75.1 52.2 75.7 2'750 25.1 79.5 85.9 206'620 16.70 96.9 64. 90..92 52.89 93.5 94..3 47.0 . 40.0 .. 100.29 136.8 94. Mobile cellular subscribers Cellular mobile subscribers Total per 100 CAGR (000s) inhabitants (%) 2002 2002 1997-2002 851 27.0 .9 64...8 1'577 13.2 72 1..09 73.5 59..57 91...5 95.0 85.1 .46 49.1 749 19.0 .0 98.88 67.8 .0 90.67 124.0 87. ...7 Population coverage (%) 2002 90.4 1'027 6..0 .5 82. .4 . .2 873 10.7 45.78 363...0 50.7 90.75 70.8 90 10..7 4'200 8.00 64.0 76..0 80.0 82.6 55.5 463 4..1 150 8.9 15 2..) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St. ..52 116.9 108 22.4 .8 8 0. 80.5 38.2 58.3 15. .76 85.7 22.3 4'597 10.6 Prepaid subscribers (%) 2002 98.8 ..4 33. 95.0 30.01 105.4 0.

4 25'928 25.35 81.76 32..53 58. .8 . .26 45...0 .0 89.45 71.7 570 18.5 ...4 1. 34. Kitts and Nevis St..3 67.7 .0 95.7 56.2 70.. 82.1 28.26 47..81 84.00 75.38 64.36 71. . Mobile cellular subscribers Cellular mobile subscribers Total per 100 CAGR (000s) inhabitants (%) 2002 2002 1997-2002 6'500 17..8 46. 100...0 100....9 79.6 917 39.8 62.. 98.95 98..5 .4 67..0 As % of total telephone subscribers 2002 44.7 70 1.0 8'610 84.50 96.7 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St. . 73.1 52...4 89.0 92..2 43.6 465 17.10 48... 99.91 52. 99.7 6'464 25..9 9 12.9 .8 350 28.9 .6 279 21. 77.13 50.7 66.0 5 10.7 53.4 Prepaid subscribers (%) 2002 . .8 69. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-30 .7 415 24.0 63.2 102'297 30.0 99.0 98.0 32.7.7 18..5 .94 57.45 82.0 17.5 71.7 63. 100. 93.5 59.8 89.5 .0 .5 460 11. .1 45 55.4 14'000 36.0 652 19.60 57. 77.50 81..5 21.2 2'340 53.7 60.2 56. 84.1 92..0 45.0 30.6 Population coverage (%) 2002 .83 73.6 6'863 67.4 51.4 14 8. 29.68 35..0 65.13 6'446 42.26 76.70 15..64 89.4 65..6 1'646 47..88 74.0 95.2 ..02 43.72 72..1 775 22..0 ..1 60..6 74.7 5'008 21.4 78.3 9'241 37.9 2'923 54..3 73.64 43.0 99.2 67.0 .95 55. 91.15 50..0 362 27.3 67.6 52 20..9 52.3 65..3 52.5 65. 78.0 90.8 96.0 95...6 8 7..3 7.7 40.9 881 65.

5 638'079 66.0 99.44 35.7 .80 60.. Mobile cellular subscribers Cellular mobile subscribers Total per 100 CAGR (000s) inhabitants (%) 2002 2002 1997-2002 38 48. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.3 46.47 47.2 5'747 78.0 90 36.0 10.9 29.3 61.2 62.7 81.0 37.8 78.0 100.4 60..2 60.39 29..9 43.0 99.0 99.0 99..87 35.6 67.2 Population coverage (%) 2002 85.9 55..0 49'677 84.0 99.8 .6 68.6 9'314 84. 68.7 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.8 2'449 62.0 53.74 15. 99.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.0 70.7 276 62.32 40.0 99.98 22.0 100.95 36.0 95.07 4. 55.5 8'136 78.05 47.1 11'849 37.75 48.1 51.0 54.9 1'162'675 37'080 252'642 449'130 408'508 15'315 19. 95.2 32'342 67.2 61.0 99. A-31 .0 100.3 Prepaid subscribers (%) 2002 .6 99.2 65. . China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.0 95.2 31.7 60.5 95.3 50.1 23.4 277 69.0 8'529 82.1 60.0 68..90 42.9 137 40..4 46.7 62.0 99.25 23.4 60'043 72..3 1'667 83.3 1'227 51..5 62.06 32.3 54.26 48.1 53.0 99. .0 97.0 3'840 84.70 46.9 3'000 76.1 34.03 81..0 53 19.6 .17 34.71 72.7 418 58..8 57. 11..3 .9 58.0 99.32 25.15 74.0 100..3 69.5 46.2 140'767 48.5 66.0 .5 40.3 473 106. Source: ITU.65 16.0 97.93 40.8 122 39.60 31..1 66.3 6'396 94.9 54.2 2'428 69.89 20.9 38'585 64.0 93.1 57.1 54.0 97..2 54.5 65.8 3'313 79.90 12..54 58.56 31.9 54.8 51.4 35.0 99.7 43.3 22.53 77.1 54.0 97.0 100.4 17.36 18.7 12'579 63.7 89.42 50.1 91. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.0 98.7.33 46.8 63.62 40.5 93. 31.07 41.0 100.2 71.3 58.2 52.0 95.1 78.0 64.0 .0 97.0 99.0 99.87 40.5 As % of total telephone subscribers 2002 50.56 52.4 4'517 86.72 22..1 27.3 61.8 37.0 99.2 95. 44.6 100.7 6'334 95.7 49.2 62.3 67.4 6'415 78.0 99.98 93.1 61.2 63.7 389 58. 52.2 62.0 95.42 51.3 12'060 74.9 28.0 99.61 51.4 4'478 83.0 44.4 51.66 75. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.1 62.80 43.3 24.2 45.5 67..5 58.7 51.81 20.5 64.5 53'003 93.4 33.7 38.91 73.6 72..1 53..5 7'949 88.3 . see the technical notes.2 81'118 63.59 29.2 63.45 30.4 53.9 35.53 40.5 261 90.0 98.7 84.52 41.2 74.6 23'905 106.2 45.6 58.9 33'531 82.4 267 43.0 100.7 43.5 34.7 80 35.8 82.

.82 .08 0.19 0.20 0.. 55.06 .. 0.05 0...07 .82 34....24 0.02 21. 3..00 .8..26 0..04 37. 0. . . * * 0.14 0. ...17 ..53 13..29 0. ..15 .. ....55 13.05 0.20 0.73 6..03 0..21 0.09 .25 0. . 0... 14.91 .06 0..26 0... . 0. 6..32 0..57 9..14 .03 . ...54 . 0. 0.. .... 0....41 0.. . . .D.87 * 43. 0. 0.41 0.....09 0.... 50.04 0.12 0.06 0.05 0. 28.06 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep. 0..... 0.21 0.21 0..41 .29 * * 0.44 0..22 .24 0..10 0.. . 0.01 .21 24.29 0.24 0.08 0...13 0. .. .30 Per minute local call Peak Off-peak 2003 2003 ... 35.87 . Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.....29 .76 16.31 0... ..19 .. 28...54 0..84 ..08 0. ..... . .13 0.05 0... 0..15 0.25 0. 0..10 0.76 . 0.. . . .81 .06 . .13 0... Prepaid cellular tariffs. . 0. . .45 * .03 .32 ..45 .26 0...16 0. .32 0.74 .. .......51 . .27 0.50 22..26 0.. . 0. . US$ October 2003 Connection charge 2003 ... 49.. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.. * . .10 0...95 ... 12.. * 0.. .03 0.06 0. .36 0..21 Cost of local SMS 2003 ....R.15 * * ...16 ....29 0..07 ..22 0... . 9.20 0......24 0.30 0...10 . Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-32 . ..19 0. 35.. .11 0. .04 . 12.....69 . .... ..... ...09 0....10 0.....10 0...65 0.... .10 0. .19 0. ... 0.... 0....24 0.05 * ....33 0.20 0.11 . 0.02 .....03 0. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.32 0.R. .78 53.20 0. * 53... . ... 0. ....65 ..44 0.. 0.07 0. 0.34 0.... 0. 0.02 . 0.62 10..37 10.02 0... 12.10 0.. ..10 ...

.38 0. . 23.02 0.17 0.. 84.64 0.49 0.30 0....13 0.50 0.R..19 0.07 .18 0.06 0.29 0.17 0.06 .. 0.10 0.77 9. 20.04 0..05 0.11 0.08 .40 .. ..20 0.64 0..31 .28 0.27 0. .07 . 0..69 8.74 97. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I..12 0..35 0.06 0.00 35.05 0.06 0.. .25 0. ..06 0. 23..07 0.25 0. 0.50 0.37 34.29 .09 0.75 4..06 .08 0.56 0..16 .22 14.43 0. US$ October 2003 Connection charge 2003 21.06 0.04 . .48 0.50 .30 0..08 0.14 0..21 0..50 .27 .49 .00 5.33 0.56 0.. 0...14 0..06 0.24 0.15 0..22 Cost of local SMS 2003 0.21 0. 0.. 0.08 0.14 0.25 0..19 0. 0.40 0.15 0.21 0.08 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.10 0.27 0..09 0. 3..85 Per minute local call Peak Off-peak 2003 2003 0..... .78 ...28 0.57 0. 22..06 0.. 120.15 0...30 0.02 0...19 0.10 .74 6.02 .19 0.25 0.56 ..86 39.. 18.02 . 0. 41. .16 0.10 0...11 0...07 0.37 10.14 0.14 10.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.06 0.. 0..08 0..12 . ..09 0.30 0. 0..92 25.09 0. 0.21 0.02 0..07 0..19 0.56 0.33 0.14 0..12 0..21 0..12 0.05 0.06 0..04 0.51 .40 0.18 0.49 3.. 0.17 0...17 0.15 0.17 0..90 0....27 0.29 0.25 0. 0. ..63 5.12 0.58 10. . 10..09 30..04 0.56 . 0.07 0.40 62.75 15.13 0.28 0. 8.25 0.10 0..21 0. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-33 .42 0..11 .00 87.08 0.18 0.. . Prepaid cellular tariffs.08 .19 0..06 .11 0..8.21 0.. 14.19 0.98 .29 0.25 0.

48 0... ..8... ..05 0..84 1.. Prepaid cellular tariffs..73 0.26 0.32 0.84 . . 29. US$ October 2003 Connection charge 2003 ...04 0.41 106.95 .... ..28 0.21 0.02 . 0..14 0. .09 ...16 ..63 .68 8.10 ..10 .. 0...04 0.44 0..35 Cost of local SMS 2003 0. .....09 0.25 .24 0.43 0....07 . Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-34 ... 0.13 0.04 0.08 0..07 0..75 .11 0... . .68 15..25 0.. . 0..08 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St. 0.33 8.. . 0.. 0... 53.... 0..33 ...54 0. . .32 0...83 Per minute local call Peak Off-peak 2003 2003 0..12 0.28 .. 33. 25......44 0. .04 . 0.. Kitts and Nevis St. .56 .56 0.13 ..... 0..04 0......... .39 .10 0.. 4..32 .94 . . 0.04 . . ... . .39 0.11 0. 1. 78...41 0.69 0.. 21.08 0.00 ...13 0. 0.27 0..03 0.30 0.. 1. .69 0.. . 0.33 0...10 0... 0.03 .. 0....73 .14 0. .. .07 0. ....07 0.32 0..

11 ..76 20.48 0..18 0..35 .33 1.32 9..63 ..09 ..07 0..21 0..09 .58 0. ..64 5...48 22.11 0.42 . 0...10 0...15 0.14 0. .. 9.. 0.06 0.10 0. .27 0.. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified... 0.08 0. 0.16 0. 82.88 0.14 . Prepaid cellular tariffs.57 0..77 28. 0...31 0..58 0.24 0. 0...10 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.04 ..) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.87 22.10 0.10 0.33 0.. A-35 .33 0.....09 0.08 0... 18. 0..21 0.. ..53 0..11 0.33 0.12 0..75 25.42 0. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.10 0.. ..41 .21 . * No network. ...47 0.. .06 0.28 ..14 0.... 1...08 0. 0. ..28 0.06 .06 0.67 0.. see the technical notes..38 0.33 0. ... ..15 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.40 24..25 0.35 0.08 0.07 0.17 0. .08 0..53 0.25 0.38 0.44 .16 0...20 .16 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong. 47.15 .88 0..44 0.18 0. 0.24 0. . ..71 Per minute local call Peak Off-peak 2003 2003 0..47 37.11 0. 53.46 0.25 0.31 0.43 22.67 .17 18.22 0.87 .. 0.07 0. 52. ..15 0. 0... .31 0.. 11..83 26. .20 0.04 .05 . . US$ October 2003 Connection charge 2003 .. 0.29 . . 21.72 .. .35 Cost of local SMS 2003 .. 66.15 .42 0.35 0..8..06 0.41 0.21 0.16 0..13 0...06 0..85 23.10 0.29 0. 0. . Source: ITU....36 0.20 0.15 0...25 0. .22 14.14 0.50 0.14 0.04 0..67 0..47 0...18 0.17 0. .03 . 0.08 0.. 16.. ..12 ...11 0..30 0..24 0...38 0.22 0.88 18.. 0.

33 4.3 14.18 0.5 113.R.9.7 0.1 1.03 38.2 0.1 1.04 0.06 0.07 0.1 0.40 0.2 41.03 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-36 .5 9.05 2.3 0.36 4.4 2.05 1.3 0.3 7.05 B-channel as % of main lines 2002 0.6 B-channel per 1'000 inhabitants 2002 0.3 0. ISDN and ADSL ISDN subscribers (000s) 2002 0.11 0.19 0.85 0.04 0.42 1.3 0.80 0.06 1.53 0.5 0.02 0.2 0.9 0.21 0.11 0.R.4 0. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.70 0.10 0.5 0.03 0.05 2.01 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.9 0.74 0.12 3. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.5 58.2 29.3 0.29 0.5 B-channel equivalents (000s) 2002 3.18 ADSL subscribers Total As % of (000s) subscriber lines 2002 2002 0.6 0.06 0.15 0.01 0.2 0.41 0.02 70.22 0.4 0.11 0.3 0.2 4.D.6 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 12.64 0.9 0.0 2.02 0.0 0.13 2.2 0.80 0.1 0.49 3.09 31.0 0.34 0.89 0.3 0. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.32 0.5 0.10 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.

.8 2.28 ..04 1. 43.9 0...75 0.22 .7 0.. .4 1..01 0....7 29.0 0..1 .87 0..52 2.53 3.43 0.3 0.6 1...19 0.19 2. 2....28 0. 45..63 2.79 .04 1.03 0. 0.2 0.. .R.07 0.0 10.29 ADSL subscribers Total As % of (000s) subscriber lines 2002 2002 600. ..49 .02 2.68 21. 0. 0.66 34..0 .2 B-channel equivalents (000s) 2002 0.8 0.76 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.3 0..7 0.10 3.9 1.42 0. 0...3 11..6 . 2.6 12.21 0.0 1.0 6..9 0..02 15.19 2.0 0. 0.1 0.92 0.7 1.0 9.1 1. 14.1 0..3 1.70 0.23 0.14 2.1 11..2 0.2 .0 4... 1. 0..66 1. 1.08 1.0 B-channel per 1'000 inhabitants 2002 0.1 467. 2.02 ...1 .) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.08 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.12 .0 929. 5.07 2.13 .10 .44 0.17 1..55 2'220..11 .46 .02 0.1 0..8 .2 24..8 193.3 0.. 2. ISDN and ADSL ISDN subscribers (000s) 2002 0.2 0.02 2'919..41 B-channel as % of main lines 2002 0. 0.03 ..06 0.31 0.14 0.60 4.74 0.03 2.9 88.7 0.1 0.5 1.7 63..6 1'487. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I..31 0...1 .7 0.. 16. ...5 1.05 0.0 0.65 0.2 0.1 12..10 0.29 0.6 8. .34 2.87 . 1.22 0.2 0. 9..9.5 54. 2.5 0.2 0. 0. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-37 .71 10.28 .. .0 29.17 9..8 2.. .3 1. 0.86 0.04 2.0 0.2 39.10 3.0 10.80 0.01 0..8 0..83 ..02 .2 ...8 2..6 8. 0.5 3..42 0...2 0.29 0.6 1'177.53 .9 2..

05 . .0 0..80 ..4 0.0 1..2 2.15 19.12 0.43 10. .63 79.68 44... 4.0 0.44 42..40 0..7 432.73 9. 102.88 54. 46.53 . . 7.. Kitts and Nevis St..07 0..3 200.6 .7 34..9 1.44 .0 6..1 78....49 0...3 142.09 66.6 41. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-38 .76 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.81 9.2 198.. .8 1.. 4. 0.4 0.19 6..03 12.0 60.0 .2 31.28 B-channel as % of main lines 2002 .91 5. 0.67 33.05 3..20 4.11 0.89 12..6 0.3 0.0 1.0 1'705.9..6 1.94 0. 0.9 B-channel equivalents (000s) 2002 ..5 2.. . ISDN and ADSL ISDN subscribers (000s) 2002 ..80 73.9 718.63 6.1 0.44 14.13 0. 1.84 .5 8.3 4.3 0.6 14.2 .23 3.7 2. . 0.76 22.66 10. 1...68 0.. 0.42 3.16 45...6 ...2 0.7 71.5 2...16 19.4 12.2 1.70 0.5 .61 0..55 0..3 29.1 0..8 0.6 1..67 3..65 399.2 557. 17.1 10.95 0.3 106.2 0.4 B-channel per 1'000 inhabitants 2002 ..34 ADSL subscribers Total As % of (000s) subscriber lines 2002 2002 64.. 2.4 108.33 10.0 0.89 11.3 145. .79 15.26 1.

3 21'820.5 1'003.1 0. 56.0 9.0 11. ISDN and ADSL ISDN subscribers (000s) 2002 0.12 1'277.6 147.65 11.79 1'832.97 28.6 273.6 27.7 0.3 9'096.8 2'400. 1'872.4 425.35 13.7 232.99 8.76 .4 8.97 14.19 145.03 85.0 233.1 23.03 296.46 41.52 6.27 2.82 1'726.36 24.6 4.27 83..99 21.0 7.6 0.62 22.3 55'760.4 99.6 28.1 801.87 241.09 5.28 2.0 9.4 148.0 1'117.71 23.97 5.96 11.63 82.00 10..98 220.10 14.7 3.21 16.70 6'471.6 .7 1.2 2'256.71 0.24 186.0 9..63 1. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.74 309.16 850.5 443.34 1.14 36.2 1.41 113..12 3'160.2 375.65 15..0 10'406.56 6'386.59 10.9 4.39 3.86 25.49 95..30 .19 1.61 B-channel as % of main lines 2002 2.41 0.0 4.6 5'756.21 28.8 10'508.45 33'881.7 .0 4.9 34'439.0 915.08 ADSL subscribers Total As % of (000s) subscriber lines 2002 2002 108.5 5.84 10.9 3.6 56.0 20'435.72 1.18 1.1 9. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.8 355.16 116. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.69 136.49 137.96 5.0 2.0 9'598.16 120.78 4.10 2.2 1'536.9 11'190.2 23'415.0 18'528.56 64..6 59.5 5.1 1.4 6.84 518.55 370.89 101.21 5. A-39 .0 15.44 13.78 178.22 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.66 0.1 36'686.62 113.5 1.9 19.35 13.33 52.72 30.29 24.57 7'023.1 1'268.3 16. 411.6 1'017.0 272.54 10.0 7.9 64..53 90.96 195.0 394.1 2'954.13 4.00 19. 3.46 0.54 19.1 204.5 1'027. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.8 15.13 227.2 4.88 18.0 2.87 13.09 91.1 24'433.0 1.12 27.0 49.16 29.2 1.59 36.40 41.48 854.48 16..4 4'900.9 278.9 558.9 1'179.7 .7 95.60 7.03 4.7 949.8 18.0 6. 0.0 1'655.0 1.57 37'270.2 0.5 422.0 2. 0.32 307.94 590.8 58.35 15.6 87'978. Source: ITU.0 3.91 960.0 3..01 ..59 15.58 45.0 2.36 5..71 14.9 11'305.05 162.9 B-channel per 1'000 inhabitants 2002 13.77 8.9 B-channel equivalents (000s) 2002 1.09 26.8 11.03 .47 17.94 160.0 245.0 1'900.82 11.1 5.0 79.65 9.9 11.81 0. see the technical notes.1 1.2 3'688.5 2.9 51.24 333.27 16.7 0.61 7.75 41..1 9'494.0 134. 39.02 13..1 47.5 0.9 .06 151. 810.38 1..27 72.03 3.8 118.7 14.3 114.9 1.1 6.6 881.5 1'281.9 90'726.11 26.71 49.9..41 71.8 1'901.3 711.03 79.4 24.4 217.2 860.08 41.0 34.0 4.68 4.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.

8 0.6 40.6 1.7 … 2.7 3.5 61.7 … -3.0 9.2 0.4 12.8 Outgoing international telephone traffic As % of CAGR Minutes bothway (%) per inhab.7 25.9 2.5 35.3 9.8 0.4 2.9 293.7 42.2 434.5 0.9 7.5 292.1 294.5 0.8 1.7 2.8 3.3 0.1 2.9 3.8 9.1 4.3 … -0.9 1.9 15.4 18.5 … 15.8 202.7 36.5 79.1 5.3 9.7 300.7 18.8 0.7 9.8 7.4 1.3 18.7 3.5 … 4.6 5.9 6.4 466.4 28.4 12.7 23.6 24.6 17.0 14.5 … 4. International telephone traffic Total M Minutes 2002 34.3 111.4 0.0 Minutes per subscriber 2002 403.6 -1.6 16.6 7.1 1.0 0.5 34.4 … 5.5 28.6 108.0 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 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.8 274.6 … 14.6 0.2 307.2 … … … … 22.6 0.1 3.3 1.4 352.0 126.7 15.0 289.2 0.6 11.8 17.7 10. 2002 1997-2002 2002 34.5 43.6 4.1 363.3 0.7 23.3 2.4 0.2 … 1.5 0.0 15.1 2.9 … 7.2 36.4 55.3 1.0 … 10.5 24.4 22.3 32.8 67.6 … … 2.0 13. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.0 … 203.3 4.9 128.4 12.0 0.2 8.6 1.8 21.6 … 10.R.1 20.2 3.0 373.4 124.9 309.4 137.3 74.7 36.6 4.3 -10.0 34.3 4.9 1.1 1.8 0.5 … 102.0 60.6 6.9 1.7 … 42.6 9.7 28.8 39.4 0.0 3.0 123.8 64.8 0.2 77.5 -11.9 5.9 0.1 33.8 … 68.7 2.9 37.5 15.1 394.4 -4.2 5. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.3 9. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-40 .8 1.1 -9.3 7.10.7 0.6 International telephone circuits (000s) 2002 0.6 58.5 … 7.8 278.9 … … 0.8 9.9 3.1 … 17.8 19.6 733.1 … 1.9 7.8 21.8 1.7 … 11.3 0.1 799.5 0.4 24.4 0.9 13.2 19.1 72.3 … 0.6 0.6 1.1 15.0 177.2 39.9 -5.5 20.9 15.1 0.1 27.6 21.2 0.4 10.8 36.3 4.2 17.8 35.D.9 349.6 25.9 … 1.8 … 623.7 35.4 3.8 26.3 0.4 -43.1 401.2 0.6 5.2 124.6 2.3 3.1 81.2 1.0 … … … 36.7 0.8 52.8 1.9 … … 0.5 2.3 18.1 26.7 … … 22.9 2.2 … 20.4 2'342.2 212.9 4.2 … 0.6 1.1 1.3 74.5 12.8 46.0 1.8 20.8 0.6 336.8 29.5 6.2 8.4 0.0 108.2 43.5 … 11.6 23.6 78.4 18.9 … 11.3 1.9 36.1 10.4 27.3 50.6 22.5 9.6 101.2 69.9 22.2 660.2 0.3 35.3 23.3 3.8 0.0 4.9 1.7 60.3 … 3.1 1.0 11.5 … … 0.8 6.5 353.6 245.3 194.0 1.8 23.1 … 9.3 86.9 -1.4 0.2 -2.8 0.9 9.6 1.0 13.3 2.3 20.4 208.1 17.2 -5.3 11.3 24.R.6 270.5 25.1 30. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.7 7.0 11.6 2.1 … 8.

8 5.0 212.2 53.10.2 17.7 36.8 47.8 … 1.0 51.0 209.9 77.R.7 45.6 284.7 52.4 1.7 269.5 16.4 8.8 55.9 9.7 117.9 8.9 649.4 28.9 59.8 20.1 11.1 393.6 18.9 25.9 40.7 0.9 11.5 26.7 134.3 164.1 24.0 163.8 38.1 16.5 17.6 103.6 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.0 8.1 173.0 32.9 82.2 19.3 … 4.2 240.2 36.4 2.6 12.1 10.3 51.1 … 20.8 … 4.5 12.5 122.7 28.1 63.3 5.0 244.3 310.8 5.9 23. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.7 10.8 8.1 242.0 22.2 31.8 21.6 4.1 8.8 567.1 4.3 106.4 23.7 81.9 115.6 … 3.1 65.9 89.7 10.1 20.9 1.6 7.0 35.3 37.2 4.3 416.0 55.8 2.9 47.2 15.8 31.5 -1.3 1'421.0 259.4 5.8 13.3 226.0 … 15.6 3.2 7.3 … 4.0 563.6 2.0 … 11.0 384.6 39.5 28.4 … 27.1 … 0.8 54.3 2.9 155.3 2.1 24.0 9.5 76.1 58.7 145.7 335.8 806.2 295.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.8 24.2 4.6 -4.6 9.7 268.4 14.6 172.1 Minutes per subscriber 2002 281.4 131.7 222.3 40.6 213.8 111.0 9.0 19.7 6.1 656.9 5.0 … 0.3 33.9 … 277.6 0.0 54.6 37.6 39.4 6.3 34.2 33.7 39.7 6.7 … 11.0 5. 2002 1997-2002 2002 13.3 34.8 9.5 51.3 64.4 27.3 … 3.1 89.0 10.1 -7.4 27.9 43.9 198.3 4.5 22.1 131.2 12.4 24.7 12.0 1'219.8 9'844.0 0.1 8.2 … -4.2 15.3 6.5 234.8 9.8 2.3 66.4 International telephone circuits (000s) 2002 9.9 0.0 0.2 48.1 4.6 … 5.0 23.8 5.8 … 1.2 244.4 21.4 1'253.1 9.3 9.6 19.6 17.9 18.4 144.3 50.3 -5.2 13.6 50.7 19.6 39. International telephone traffic Total M Minutes 2002 62.7 6.2 294.0 21.3 27.2 157.0 12.6 0.3 336.8 25.1 4.7 16.9 12.5 60.3 9.6 14.3 … 4.7 305.7 171.5 41.6 63.2 5.1 4.3 … 6.3 1.5 48.5 … 3.2 0.9 10.7 … 15.0 16.4 36.1 0.0 … … … … 15.7 20.0 136.4 46.4 18.7 … 7.0 42.9 32.7 -6.7 … 9. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-41 .8 89.8 3.2 22.0 33.2 3.9 … 3.2 40.0 4.9 10.8 Outgoing international telephone traffic As % of CAGR Minutes bothway (%) per inhab.8 4.0 7.9 18.9 12.1 69.5 24.6 3.9 20.3 4.0 -11.7 137.0 3.3 16.4 64.2 11.2 499.0 … 17.6 12.3 144.6 7.

9 97.2 … 8.1 … 42.2 Minutes per subscriber 2002 53.8 392.7 11.2 27.8 134.2 11.8 24.2 45.6 129.5 36.6 9.6 1.7 197.0 37.8 87.9 130.9 124.5 217.3 854.6 24.3 11.2 33.9 8.4 93.3 1.7 … 15.0 45.3 8.1 … -8.6 5.6 11.7 … 4.5 … 11.9 305.5 36.9 -1.2 44.8 148.7 39.1 577.8 240.6 120.4 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.2 7.0 0.4 113.2 27.9 165. Kitts and Nevis St.8 19.6 … 17.6 10.6 63.4 360.1 45.6 2.9 680.8 12.6 … 2.4 61.7 18.6 68.8 … 0.6 4.3 21.7 273.6 392.5 19.9 14.6 728.9 19.3 International telephone circuits (000s) 2002 … 0. International telephone traffic Total M Minutes 2002 426.4 15.6 70.0 82.0 21.2 52.8 9.7 1'916.0 36.6 27.1 34.8 103.7 106.10.1 424.2 217.3 15.7 27.3 73.8 … 1.4 2.5 36.1 Outgoing international telephone traffic As % of CAGR Minutes bothway (%) per inhab.6 40.7 … 34.8 45.4 -3.8 100.7 28.9 83. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-42 .4 38.3 9.1 281.8 45.2 46.2 … 3.4 27.1 1'996.4 133.2 194.1 43.3 8.7 27.4 … 0.3 833.5 37.2 76.0 … 9.0 11.6 10.7 78.6 126.7 25.5 480.1 … … 4.3 240.1 … 4.5 30.0 37.0 8'621.8 … 160.1 31.3 369.2 23.4 28.1 271.1 … … 2.6 … … … 40.3 103.5 64.5 10.8 83.7 58.5 2.2 144.1 … 20.6 67.7 421.5 23.5 … … … 9. 2002 1997-2002 2002 … 14.6 65.5 31.1 38.6 26.2 858.

3 139.3 586.0 233.6 357.5 … 8.2 Outgoing international telephone traffic As % of CAGR Minutes bothway (%) per inhab.4 … -5.9 194.3 61.0 541.5 2'250.9 22'677.6 142.6 158.8 189.2 9'000.7 78.2 123.9 … 11.8 453.0 551.0 300.5 7.1 2'507.6 77.4 2.0 67.1 174.7 1'529.1 1'395.7 52.6 190.7 3'673.0 41.1 471.7 487.6 1.9 … -1.6 4.3 469.3 0.7 546.4 … 16.7 Minutes per subscriber 2002 407.8 22.9 1'334.3 … 0.7 4'610.7 6.1 863.6 8.9 … … … … 5.5 624.6 312.6 2'600.0 114.1 44.5 188. International telephone traffic Total M Minutes 2002 15.8 121.9 706.9 12.3 518.5 21.1 172.5 7. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.9 … … … 197.0 344.5 8.7 54. 2002 1997-2002 2002 30.9 20.0 10.1 60.8 219.7 288.6 … -71.3 127'430.3 21.5 … … … 12.0 … 6.1 … 10.2 138.7 -0.4 520.4 3'981.2 10.8 462.5 121.1 965. Source: ITU. see the technical notes.7 74.3 357.7 352.8 792.1 164.6 347.9 … 7.0 857.1 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.9 … 18.2 66.9 59.1 168.4 80.0 2'638.1 198.4 214.5 3'323.6 110.0 18.6 152.9 … 3.7 … 8.1 54.0 214. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.5 56.2 255.7 67.3 63.4 10.0 10.5 57.1 152.5 1'965.2 14.5 77.0 19.9 45.4 129.4 23.3 382.4 … … 55.9 1'894.9 147.4 51.6 52.5 56.3 4. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.0 40'337.2 481.6 259.4 … 15.4 8.2 … 14.4 46.5 80.7 189.2 52.2 107.7 37.2 38.0 46.9 … 19.5 … 14.4 31.5 18.10. A-43 .0 44.0 3.0 1'266.0 43.6 1'805.0 1'019.7 543.4 13.3 73.4 13.2 … 4.2 1.1 161.3 3.5 37.8 4.7 11.7 116.2 10.3 … … … 0.0 1'193.6 … 464.3 61.1 210.9 63.4 1'732.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.4 4'703.0 60.0 354.3 20.3 12.2 79.5 46'099.3 86.0 257.2 53.8 69.4 54.0 90.9 110.0 52'822.1 38.4 … 16.7 164.0 1'246.6 … 20.1 179.3 199.0 … 84.2 25.8 161.2 2.4 545.1 157.4 … 4.4 1'038.8 25.3 10'186.9 44.9 375.0 106.2 106'621.9 International telephone circuits (000s) 2002 … … … … 4.5 152.0 2'590.8 1'136.7 45.0 2'153.6 209.8 393.3 385.3 … 6.0 245.7 264.2 95.6 … 7.8 51.8 124.1 37.4 0.8 90.4 18.2 1'323.9 216.9 21.3 299.5 1'041.6 105.2 989.9 2.9 62.7 1'052.9 2.1 82.4 5.

.9 2.2 3.7 93 -9. .2 17...0 140 -3.0 5. .1 49 2.5 24.7 … 55 -1. .5 346 5.4 7. .. .D. ...4 0.... .7 75 -7.10 1'957 0....05 3'976 .8 35 0..3 13.. .7 23. . ..8 48 -0.2 31.5 … 70 6.6 30. .. .7 1.6 55 5.1 87 3.68 240 0.8 150 -3...04 1'125 ..3 85 -10.4 2.3 12. . .6 21.9 184 0.37 685 .0 805... ...4 0.7 7.5 416.6 56 6...38 888 0.3 19...7 38..... ..0 … 74 -2.2 1........ .. .2 0.6 7. ..3 150 -1.. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D..0 50 -5.2 0..8 150 0..2 2.0 17. ..12 2'624 .4 28. 1..1 176 -1... Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-44 .3 … 18 -1...7 179 -1.3 9... 0. .8 19... 4.3 0.8 23..3 … 345 8..8 23.....7 2.9 27.6 … 38 -0. .2 0.7 30.2 4. .1 19.4 237 0. 0..4 1. ..05 1'681 ... 0.1 22. .9 18.. .. ... 0.4 336 -3...5 9...3 80.. .4 0.9 4.1 14.8 0. 0.8 … 42 -14...1 16. . ..2 Total telecommunication staff CAGR % Subscribers (%) female per employee 1997-2002 2002 2002 0.6 22.24 826 .6 53. 0. ..0 5.4 24.. .2 33.. . . Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.5 192 1.0 41 8.3 7.0 54 5.R.7 42.21 1'914 ..8 0..1 4..1 1..... .8 27.. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.6 39.8 1.0 247 -6.33 655 0....4 46.4 113 Mobile staff Total Subscribers (000s) per employee 2002 2002 . . ..45 124 ..4 … 69 -5.. . 16... .5 … 108 -0.2 29.5 0. ...1 7. 0.0 … 50 -3. ..3 248 14. 0.8 … 144 -0... .22 826 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.8 0.6 41... ....4 0....1 12. .7 368 … … .4 54..4 3.6 2..9 720 4.. .2 43...2 0..1 … 110 0..1 … 73 8.0 49 0..8 1.6 … 46 12. .. . .7 28. .08 379 .....1 220 0. ..9 48 3.7 38. . ..12 1'417 .3 124 12. . ....7 0. Telecommunication staff Total (000s) 2002 2.3 53 4.0 158 1.2 8.0 3......11...6 1....4 3. . 0... .3 122 4.. .1 … 354 15...1 55.. .3 37.....1 … 3.. .1 1.7 0.... ..... ...4 82 -0...5 4.5 4.. .7 … 0.4 32.. . . .3 68 -10.0 54 18. .7 96 -7. .6 … 73 … … . ..4 71 16.1 29.4 … 73 … 19.R.4 … 138 -5. .7 11.6 1... 0.

.8 … 657 -5.7 34..8 … 120 0...07 1'257 .5 … 83 -7...5 125.. .11.0 93. 4.. .0 165 -2. .0 45 3.6 16.0 32.01 373 .3 449 2.. ..2 … 432 37.6 … 388 17..01 98 .60 3'645 .) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.. .9 53.. ..8 29. .6 35 4. .9 … 53 -0.5 21. Telecommunication staff Total (000s) 2002 3.... .R...4 20..8 67.7 … 437 3...1 199 2...7 45.4 21.4 374 -6.6 44. .. 0... . .. ... ...55 1'471 2. .3 … 66 0. .8 25.5 0...8 27.... .1 22...2 16.5 1..4 27.5 319 -1.3 7.1 16.3 … 183 3..7 303 -6.6 11.. 0.. .4 238 1... ..0 41..4 30.5 3.6 … 771 2.1 … 40 1..8 15..4 … 594 -2.. . 40..9 23..5 27. ...8 50..... .2 1'938.4 63. .3 2.0 … 330 1..1 196 -2. .7 50.8 451 0. . .8 … 241 1. 19....4 20....7 51.9 1.4 0. 1.9 202 -3....6 11... ..0 131 -4...... ...7 28.2 182 1....2 6.98 873 .2 … 139 -11.. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-45 .7 … 708 0. .50 640 0.5 685.9 5. . .7 45.9 26. .44 6'251 8..02 454 .2 47. ..2 32.1 … 97 5. .1 36.. ...1 … 181 13..2 14.0 93 2... .4 50 4. .0 0. 0...5 19.6 6.4 12..2 … 23 57.3 0.16 1'322 1.99 1'395 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.2 1.0 … 1'526 -6.3 … 368 -2..3 … 123 -1.2 1. .7 225 -8. ..0 … 222 6.. 1... . ....0 7. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.0 … 391 3.5 32...5 Total telecommunication staff CAGR % Subscribers (%) female per employee 1997-2002 2002 2002 -6.7 0. .. ..8 0.3 5. ..9 130 -9.3 304 -9.01 7'740 .1 3..1 37... 0...2 4. .6 7.6 5.. . 0.1 104 0...... 0.4 17.. .5 0.2 0..8 126 -0.2 252 -1.7 0.. ..7 3...9 243 Mobile staff Total Subscribers (000s) per employee 2002 2002 0.12 594 . .... . . 0. ..0 136 -0..9 427....0 40.3 665 -0. ..17 1'044 . .74 1'546 .7 5..0 241 21... .2 3...8 99 -3. ..2 … 111 -7.12 1'667 .6 28. .2 0..50 1'716 .. .

.. . . .. .0 0..2 5... ... .0 … 627 5..3 382 Mobile staff Total Subscribers (000s) per employee 2002 2002 .3 0..4 … 409 -6. . . ..8 … 256 1...90 1'232 6. .. . ...2 … 574 0.3 2.11 1'669 . .1 389 -2...... ... . ... Telecommunication staff Total (000s) 2002 24. .3 21.5 … 167 … … . .24 1'528 .3 253 -6.7 0.0 266 4...2 3.9 … 507 -6. ..0 Total telecommunication staff CAGR % Subscribers (%) female per employee 1997-2002 2002 2002 1.60 1'468 ... ..2 1.5 1.. ...8 … 210 2.. . ..1 20..5 33. ..80 1'465 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.3 28.6 … 319 14. 14.4 374 11.9 … 358 0.5 69... .0 0....2 162 -1.47 1'443 0... ...8 399.1 … 630 1.1 185 -0. . .... 1.5 … 511 2...7 512 … … 132 -1. 33.7 14. .35 1'355 .5 … 260 2. . ..2 … 153 -1.0 415 6...5 … 256 -6..0 21.4 1..0 22..0 35..7 24..8 3..4 … 202 0.4 4.5 … 46 -14.9 5......6 34..1 … 3.. ..4 30. 4...8 99. 0.1 41....5 36.4 14. Kitts and Nevis St... .4 … 387 10.6 307 0. .. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-46 .. .32 1'423 1.2 … 182 -0..4 390 2..6 70.11.2 0.. 4. 3.80 1'192 . .1 5.7 19...9 10..2 20. ..7 14.. .....0 5.

.9 … 84.02 2'980 ..4 37...50 948 0....2 1.8 87.3 425 … 275 20..0 17.1 1.3 376 6.6 26..2 … 1'044 -2.6 28. .3 … 334 9.1 9...9 231... .7 5'731... . .4 37. . .. .....4 249..1 1.10 4'058 ....9 12.55 244.. 0. .....3 7.08 656 4. ... 7.7 2'588.11.0 23..2 358 2... Telecommunication staff Total (000s) 2002 0. .5 1.4 234 15.3 -2..3 5. .8 45.20 2'383 5. .3 735 -6. 25. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage..6 336 6.3 732 -13.8 149.0 … 915 -5.... 12..96 1'129 342.0 … 991 -6. .4 176 0.2 77.3 24..2 1'564. .. ... ... . 8...6 … 129 1. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified... .. .11 1'942 .... . ..5 0... ...9 … 732 -6.6 15.4 248 1.3 … 496 1..8 … 508 1.. ..0 … 299 0. . .. .6 22. Source: ITU....5 … 561 7.0 25... ..1 21. ....01 1'190 1'168 866 3'135 1'808 275 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.5 236..5 38.6 23..8 8..7 … 300 0.4 2.8 1'910..2 … 475 2.4 22. .5 17.. ..8 Total telecommunication staff CAGR % Subscribers (%) female per employee 1997-2002 2002 2002 … … 338 -2. see the technical notes. .5 53.3 24..6 14. .2 329 219 337 308 360 299 Mobile staff Total Subscribers (000s) per employee 2002 2002 .44 631 ....0 1'093...8 36. .1 19. .5 … 576 8.9 37.41 732 263.4 369 6..2 21.2 27.3 353 3.0 672 1...49 67.5 14. 4... . .6 … 476 -2.. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep...3 14.1 … 491 -5.9 … 733 -7.64 1'652 ..4 22. 0..00 1'000 . .0 18. 192.9 1. .7 … 710 1.. ...38 19. ..8 453 0.97 11.54 0.9 … 349 4.8 4..5 64.7 … 377 0. .8 1'918.8 58.2 0. A-47 .5 18... . .. . .1 … 600 -15.. ..5 971 7. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan..8 … 511 … …… ..2 75.. .0 146...) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao. . -1.. ..1 1. ...7 43.1 … 329 -2.8 … 165 -1..1 18.8 40.3 1.0 33.54 4'287 .5 26.3 2....7 281 -0.. 3....3 601 0.1 31.6 1.8 1.91 1'657 ..9 -0..2 … 367 -8.

8'059 17'502 26'658 22'620 51'183 21'624 As a % of GDP 2002 1..2 2.5 48 2.8 85.0 60..4 336 15. 60.9 295 15.4 151 6.1 0.2 . 24.8 4..9 10.2 101.6 375 . 1..6 135.4 2..3 3. 2.6 772 3.2 2.9 1.5 4. ..0 .4 355.2 144..6 . 19.. 0.9 202...2 0.3 0. 39.6 198 Per employee (US$) 2002 53'906 10'542 16'903 50'312 28'064 49'965 20'083 32'541 30'997 26'901 53'325 71'203 . 2.8 334.....4 1.3 308 5.3 8.5 1.0 1..1 84.3 165 7.R.8 92 23.6 2.4 43.2 25..3 410 2.8 6.....9 971 .1 4.1 291 1.2 30.1 674 9. 13.6 1.. .1 22.5 380 8.. 22.0 432 3.8 16.8 21.2 240 7.6 190 11.9 231 5.2 1.4 1'078 2.5 232 45.1 ... .1 483.. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.4 158 15.2 9. 7.8 109 17.8 30..5 98 6....1 0..8 1.. 43. 19'600 33'035 40'230 10'641 43'399 35'043 12'856 13'469 60'100 1'396 17'958 48'588 13'732 30'670 ..8 174 3.7 1'191 10.6 1. .6 .... 28.1 458 1. 3. .5 5.1 613 7.6 1'400.6 63.2 53.5 40.. 1.2 .5 24.7 135 4.4 2.D.9 61..4 Telecommunication revenue Per inhabitant Per telephone (US$) subscriber (US$) 2002 2002 8.7 .2 46.4 1'442..0 126..4 11..2 96.. 30. 4..9 6.6 10.0 . 80'082 54'565 1'521 61'176 47'329 ..9 2'199 11.2 20.1 ..4 117 5..7 1.2 . .1 2.3 2.4 2.0 11.4 .. 94'129 25'647 13'778 27'740 8'182 26'083 35'402 ..9 96.6 % mobile 2002 27.8 2'167.8 59..7 2. . . Telecommunication revenue Total (M US$) 2002 113.1 164. 54.....9 271 1..3 ..6 .9 296 27..0 .8 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.2 17'600.3 0..2 69.0 356 7. 3..1 6. . 40.. 1..7 4.2 27... Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S..3 ..6 309 9.12.5 35...7 682 2..2 0.0 1.2 13.8 7.6 … 398.5 … … 7'644. 44'218 57'402 72'607 129'716 .7 614 9.2 207.0 379 0.. 1. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-48 .0 1'447 5..7 6..3 14.8 68.8 65.0 79..7 2..5 42.3 2. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.2 28 3.1 ..6 258 19.4 ..7 128.9 736 21... .1 56.2 2. .7 … 18.6 1. .5 97 4.0 195. .4 170 10.7 839 20...1 860 4.. .01 15.2 30 6..0 1.4 26.1 2.6 . 107'698 .7 21.4 3.2 292 .6 218. ..4 522 8.7 498 2.. .6 ..8 352 .0 … 12.R..7 604 5. .. 49.0 33.2 296 1.2 33..4 104.. 18'348 54'422 25'000 .4 18. 17.1 28.0 2..0 1.0 36.5 335 18....6 241 18..1 275. ..7 2.7 ......9 4.9 .5 4...3 5. 2..

2 2. 25.7 82.7 184 254.9 Telecommunication revenue Per inhabitant Per telephone (US$) subscriber (US$) 2002 2002 81. 38..6 88.8 2.9 4.2 32.9 2. 44....2 5.. .5 8. 174'721 54'233 55'676 19'946 57'844 141'224 16'598 64'341 74'292 7'481 12'357 68'366 73'658 As a % of GDP 2002 6.1 2.6 1'394.4 2.3 444 39. .3 826 33.. . .4 313 31.0 516 58. .0 910.9 183 43.9 309 116..1 524.8 16.8 19..1 357.0 43.3 ..2 2'486..7 3....7 63 47.9 1'740 .) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.6 3.3 4..0 214 106..0 56.6 218.4 170 56.. ..0 8...2 119'526..9 7.12. 57.6 1..6 133 21.2 6..9 .4 ..5 10.9 43. 34.. .1 69..5 … 448. 92'127 46'812 152'010 70'810 139'929 124'150 75'501 26'838 201'909 121'846 18'695 125'692 60'545 .7 4.5 85.2 11.3 48.9 20'428. .6 142 31.0 22.4 88 201.8 3'875..8 55.2 11.8 10. 26.0 103.0 162 118.1 4.8 787....6 2.2 0. 3...4 12.2 329 78.. 2... 48.9 . .7 194 232..3 147 79.9 208 91.7 41.3 174 54.4 6.4 432.5 4.7 225 45.3 208.0 298 55.5 .2 161 Per employee (US$) 2002 74'596 20'205 13'884 8'112 128'894 30'727 218'495 33'137 89'327 .4 4'140.5 50. .5 .9 304 26..7 .9 65..1 1'270..2 925 117.7 % mobile 2002 60.0 .4 .3 . 4.1 5. 25.2 601 19.9 39.2 3.9 1'727.3 48. 3...1 5'196.. 56'578 62'141 26'303 256'899 224'949 46'767 .5 4.6 3...2 1'057 116.1 .9 467 49.8 30..5 3.. 27.5 80..7 1'351 55. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-49 .3 2..7 4.4 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.8 4.0 5.4 135 11..7 0..2 448.5 2.9 4.6 601. 38..8 204 36.5 81 117.7 185 47.1 586.7 .1 0. 50..5 286 17.7 167 95. . Telecommunication revenue Total (M US$) 2002 250.4 .1 2..9 0.7 ..8 26. 5..4 236 92...7 183 21....8 389.5 28.0 1'350 34. 18...3 476.3 5. 47'126 40'408 ...8 760.7 1'651. .5 6..7 389 108. 40.R.6 361..3 .4 3.0 298 25.5 1.3 ..7 402 37.5 4.3 6'955..2 1'559.6 3..8 334..2 308. 54'365 25'461 128'368 .7 121 89.9 287 66.7 214 53.4 234 11.6 50'993.4 509 38.1 390.5 391 34.5 314 70..7 2'728.2 2.3 6.2 1'721 50... . Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.6 5'338.6 .0 121 62.1 214.9 462 142.4 12.

9 … 441.7 1'331 . .6 3.4 418.0 56..6 28.2 437...12. ..3 3..7 . 127. Telecommunication revenue Total (M US$) 2002 7'547.5 2'420..6 2..7 108.4 353 101..3 3.1 596...0 50..6 41.0 7'068.0 385 160. .8 735 153.9 6'279.2 55.2 5.3 500 221.4 Telecommunication revenue Per inhabitant Per telephone (US$) subscriber (US$) 2002 2002 208...9 241 166.. . .4 2.4 315 190.1 ..5 2..0 309 88.2 44... 35..6 ....0 3.4 298 322. . 95'549 126'018 198'675 157'243 As a % of GDP 2002 2.3 6. 38.. 229.. 3. . . Kitts and Nevis St. 24.7 27.5 3'269..5 486 116..3 266 175.4 % mobile 2002 34.0 605 309..7 .8 147 184....8 .6 47. ..3 891 174.7 254 619.3 16'938.2 61'425. 3..6 … 298. 6.9 244 87.3 414 187.2 40.5 4.1 679 . 48.0 … 3'719... ..6 2.4 4..1 3.0 390 Per employee (US$) 2002 313'922 135'922 102'402 124'849 74'711 115'843 136'169 79'706 119'618 101'694 ..8 2.6 171 186.5 4. 56..9 526 212. 210'259 90'163 .8 7...3 163....9 243 283.0 .7 2..8 366 134.... 39... 178'969 60'732 104'716 .3 8.0 .5 .3 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.7 24. 366.3 .4 509...5 .7 4.. 5..2 5.3 754 494.9 521 182.. .0 ..5 3. 37. 234'551 79'455 102'428 294'122 108'391 64'130 164'524 ..0 176.9 364.9 714.8 4'465.1 939.3 674 105. 46.1 2'934.6 ...5 19.5 498 .9 400 272.. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-50 .3 1'239.7 13..7 237.

5 357 985.6 51.9 177.5 3'245.7 2.4 3.9 21'737.0 56.0 254'403.. Telecommunication revenue Total (M US$) 2002 … 13'382.0 2.4 253 732. 690.3 3. ... Source: ITU.9 457.9 539 1'317.5 3.1 4. 65.2 15'796..7 396 825..0 799'029.3 619 1'232.1 455 522. 25.4 27..0 . A-51 ... 24.8 34.6 3.8 382 787..4 501 782.9 3.8 .9 25.7 3.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao. 361'903 408'346 251'727 228'633 308'626 268'812 299'356 199'105 58'606 252'264 170'917 191'093 168'040 As a % of GDP 2002 .3 648 504..8 588 350.1 3.7 3'348.1 33. . 237'819 .8 1'988.6 3.7 49.7 7'824.5 173. 260'214 172'273 265'280 .1 653 537..4 7.6 976 664. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.2 2.8 796 456.4 685 604.3 … 488. 3.8 3.3 36...8 1'134 705.6 347.3 2'180.0 726 625..6 677.8 3.3 2. 249'328 143'735 188'232 214'884 219'040 146'648 251'436 261'382 254'456 132'979 217'804 .7 27.9 504 .4 37..9 859 425.3 36.8 997'582..1 5.4 32.7 458 278 708 296 475 599 Per employee (US$) 2002 .7 861 1'019..8 6'877.7 2.8 4.3 32'023..4 448 926.8 6'467.6 3.7 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.5 4'847.8 16.12.0 3.3 619 642.2 % mobile 2002 .2 639 339.1 117'970.0 376'792. 231'152 356'556 251'524 . 152'112 .4 49.3 9'596.9 72'835.0 32.6 3. see the technical notes..1 9'591.5 29'796. .6 652 556.3 6'626. 733.9 259 625.1 31.4 551 874..3 45.2 856.6 113..1 3.5 899 831..4 5'245.. 789'103 408'003 117'448 231'170 216'559 57'530 .1 .4 76.8 35.8 421. 669.2 34.1 19. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.5 671 167.8 46..4 5'134.1 336'113.0 38.2 519 .0 661 485.9 3. .9 58'207...3 510 289.4 2.8 472 1'135.6 514..3 2.6 ..7 64. ...8 29...6 4'728.. 6..6 3.7 343.1 4...3 ..5 2.0 2.1 55.6 14'478.. . 28..8 502 737.2 27.4 3.4 3.8 230. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.4 4'216.8 294'000.5 ..3 44.7 391 362..4 539 908.2 512 457.5 45. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage..4 24.0 442 574. .6 2.2 3. 173'797 .9 34.2 866 662. 38.3 42.6 39.9 … 21'014..3 1'014 804.0 Telecommunication revenue Per inhabitant Per telephone (US$) subscriber (US$) 2002 2002 .6 2.9 4. 24.7 43.3 3'689....1 253 815.9 35'241..6 135..4 1. 2.3 13'138..1 391 607.3 70..9 449.7 .3 45.1 43.1 4...1 3.4 3.1 58..4 2..7 3.0 2.

9 7'219.7 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.9 … … … 2.5 7.4 71.4 … … 11.1 15.0 4.1 45.9 63.1 27.2 2.0 … … … … … … 137.9 37.5 485.7 … 4.0 55.7 2.R.3 709.1 3.3 50.2 … 5.2 … 17.R.2 250.2 66.1 132.0 26.9 40.9 27.5 … … 2.2 21.6 22.5 24.7 183.5 3.1 60.1 0.0 78.8 … 3.7 0.0 … 3.3 16.6 247.0 108.4 20.0 155.0 10. Telecommunication investment Total (M US$) 2002 … 28.2 34.7 … … 0.5 0.0 73.4 194.4 504.7 44.4 78.6 … 59.2 174.3 58.0 4.8 4.6 1.6 … 22.2 40.8 Telecommunication investment Per inhabitant Per telephone As a % (US$) subscriber (US$) of revenue 2002 2002 2002 … … … 3.8 117.6 3.3 101.5 4.0 5.5 20.9 8.D.4 68.7 891.0 1.1 108.3 5.1 11.1 124.1 0.9 29.7 5.1 0.6 5.8 14.6 2.6 108.9 75.3 51.0 9.9 4.1 12.5 40.9 66.4 1.7 0.8 139.5 23.2 59.5 … … … … … … 0.9 … … … … … … 3.3 1.6 14.6 11.2 9.6 … … … … 52.1 2.7 94.9 46.7 70.0 … … … 1.2 0.3 6.4 2.2 65.1 … 3.0 93.2 25.2 169.7 73.1 3.5 3. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.0 … 10.5 1.7 59.1 47.4 7.9 30.13.3 2'489.0 33.8 … … 3'511.4 40.4 0.7 82.4 16. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.7 38.0 0.7 4.7 12.0 34.2 2.6 50.4 30.6 3.5 10.3 … … … … … … … … … … 3.6 0.8 77.4 592.8 4.8 … 3.5 16.7 4.1 10.7 4.1 10. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-52 .6 10.2 65.1 6.2 135.0 6.6 … 132.8 322.4 … … … … 0.5 64.4 211.3 16.6 54.0 143.3 … … … … … … … 11.0 140.8 … 2.0 93.4 4.1 … … … 1.9 7.8 20.4 As % of GFCF 2002 … … 0.1 28.3 86.8 24. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.4 0.2 2.8 … 2.0 30.0 2.6 11.2 1.4 5.1 72.2 82.4 42.8 2.0 … … … 13.8 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 8.6 71.1 0.8 5.5 1'703.3 12.

13. Telecommunication investment
Total (M US$) 2002 32.2 96.5 22.7 62.4 161.8 64.0 5'205.5 407.3 14.9 25'040.0 1'530.2 143.7 2.1 288.1 44.5 665.8 163.1 15.3 … 14.4 53.0 1'825.1 137.4 193.0 87.5 8.0 … 644.3 9.0 33.5 81.5 174.5 696.7 301.7 1'014.9 1.3 212.1 712.0 35.0 4.4 32.8 12.9 175.2 47.3 1'513.0 … 212.8 198.2 7.3 466.2 … 42'865.2 Telecommunication investment Per inhabitant Per telephone As a % (US$) subscriber (US$) of revenue 2002 2002 2002 10.4 30.0 12.8 3.1 48.7 26.7 6.0 37.0 27.7 6.3 18.2 29.1 19.6 124.0 41.6 16.9 49.6 30.6 29.9 70.6 … 52.2 74.5 44.7 33.9 131.4 … 19.5 59.5 49.1 35.8 143.9 44.1 12.8 246.5 18.3 3.4 216.4 10.5 33.2 129.5 … 3.6 29.4 9.8 9.9 55.8 26.8 25.5 108.2 27.8 18.9 108.3 17.5 … … … 16.7 132.8 20.2 7.9 81.6 13.6 27.9 126.9 … 52.8 121.0 26.2 36.2 101.9 25.4 5.5 28.1 14.5 28.4 113.0 12.2 … … … 21.7 87.9 39.0 4.8 33.1 10.6 10.2 56.7 32.5 14.5 56.7 26.4 6.7 48.9 12.5 8.8 37.6 25.5 13.9 32.4 17.5 6.9 19.1 … 7.6 121.6 13.3 19.8 40.4 … 15.7 38.2 13.3 1.8 19.3 10.5 38.6 160.5 15.2 68.1 175.2 58.7 13.2 284.8 44.6 10.6 86.9 40.5 23.5 91.0 26.7 24.4 66.9 36.5 … … … 22.0 147.0 44.7 2.9 4.7 … 1.5 19.0 … 9.3 31.0 … … … … 18.0 56.1 40.6 As % of GFCF 2002 … … 5.0 2.1 14.4 … 6.1 14.5 … … 13.2 … 3.0 5.9 2.2 4.4 7.2 9.4 … … 3.6 … 5.8 … 1.6 … … … … … 6.3 1.8 4.7 3.1 1.6 … … 4.5 1.0 5.0 … 2.6 … 7.7 5.2 … 4.1 0.6 … 5.5 … 4.3

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.R.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income

A-53

13. Telecommunication investment
Total (M US$) 2002 869.0 30.0 24.8 588.8 249.1 181.8 810.7 … 72.8 45.1 … 686.2 91.9 … … 92.0 1'180.3 58.8 3'178.9 127.4 … 1'368.5 1'541.3 4.1 125.5 … … 110.1 104.7 673.9 12'215.9 Telecommunication investment Per inhabitant Per telephone As a % (US$) subscriber (US$) of revenue 2002 2002 2002 24.0 57.6 11.5 118.6 361.3 53.6 14.8 54.2 14.1 39.1 59.4 24.3 60.1 166.3 68.4 41.6 43.6 14.7 79.9 66.0 24.8 … … … 50.9 62.9 21.5 36.8 283.9 41.8 … … … 67.6 65.2 18.4 39.5 56.8 38.8 … … … … … … 25.0 42.4 34.8 49.4 96.8 26.4 48.6 86.8 36.0 31.2 77.8 18.8 47.0 183.9 25.0 … … … 35.4 77.3 19.4 66.8 185.1 24.5 50.8 91.6 10.3 23.3 33.9 13.4 … … … … … … 84.7 193.9 36.8 31.4 78.1 13.5 26.7 72.4 23.0 38.5 79.1 20.3 As % of GFCF 2002 2.3 … 2.1 4.2 … 3.3 4.4 … 4.9 … … 4.7 4.2 … … 3.8 5.4 5.8 2.6 … … 3.5 4.4 … 2.0 … … … 4.0 … 3.4

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income

A-54

13. Telecommunication investment
Total (M US$) 2002 … 4'663.2 1'562.2 … 83.9 26.8 753.8 … 3'629.3 99.2 1'279.6 730.2 5'471.7 … 6'632.1 1'232.1 1'186.7 37.3 376.3 442.8 7'289.3 15'774.8 6'506.6 42.0 72.3 40.5 31.1 2'633.0 37.6 263.0 2'588.8 1'975.5 71.2 433.0 149.6 5'241.7 1'481.7 1'633.5 2'625.8 311.7 13'432.8 29'620.0 120'462.6 182'763.5 3'555.3 47'156.1 65'972.5 61'011.8 5'067.9 Telecommunication investment Per inhabitant Per telephone As a % (US$) subscriber (US$) of revenue 2002 2002 2002 … … … 240.5 215.7 34.8 191.9 148.2 32.7 … … … 125.8 148.7 17.2 100.0 147.3 15.1 72.8 56.9 11.0 … … … 115.5 114.1 17.3 138.7 109.0 28.5 238.9 163.5 30.3 140.2 100.8 15.4 91.8 75.5 17.1 … … … 80.4 58.3 11.4 111.8 83.7 … 176.5 122.7 17.9 129.8 84.9 21.5 99.4 87.6 14.3 68.0 49.6 10.9 125.6 92.7 20.7 123.8 103.6 … 136.7 117.0 29.9 19.9 55.6 11.0 164.5 95.7 21.0 91.7 89.5 17.5 79.4 69.6 27.5 163.5 117.8 20.0 175.3 372.6 43.5 66.8 62.4 13.2 568.7 360.4 … 191.1 153.3 30.5 116.7 160.5 15.8 104.0 82.6 12.9 75.0 55.9 22.1 128.8 96.8 17.6 166.3 106.6 20.0 224.3 146.3 17.0 116.6 71.0 27.4 89.4 88.5 14.3 227.3 158.8 18.4 104.0 92.7 … 125.9 101.6 19.0 31.1 5.4 57.8 18.5 76.4 168.5 83.5 69.2 89.1 77.0 84.1 193.7 23.2 24.8 19.7 36.2 17.8 32.3 As % of GFCF 2002 … 6.0 3.6 … 9.0 … 1.5 … 2.5 5.2 3.7 2.9 1.9 … 1.8 4.0 2.7 2.2 1.7 2.1 3.4 … 5.1 0.9 1.7 5.8 3.7 3.1 … 2.3 … 6.3 … 1.9 3.0 3.2 4.0 … 5.5 1.9 5.3 … 3.2 3.4 4.7 3.7 7.4 3.0 5.5

141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong, China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao, China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan, China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania

Note: For data comparability and coverage, see the technical notes. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified. Source: ITU.

A-55

14. Equipment trade
Telecom equipment exports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1 … … … … … … … … … … … 46 50 1.7 200 137 -7.2 … 2 … … 2 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2 … … … … … … … … … … … … 2 1 -7.6 248 202 -5.3 Telecom equipment imports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … … … … 39 … 59 163 28.9 … 6 … … … … … 8 … … 2 … … … … … 20 … … … … … … … … 0 … … … … … 28 … … … … … … … … … … … 22 … 5 … … … 19 … … 26 … 63 3 -53.6 … … … … … … 243 1'615 46.0 1'397 346 -24.3 20 109 40.3 … … … … … … … 2 … 11 … … 8 14 13.8 6 … … … … … … 23 … … 11 … … … … … … … … 15 … 32 39 3.9 3 2 -5.9 148 57 -27.2 57 153 21.8 … 3 … … 5 … … … … 8 25 24.0 … … … … … … 20 47 18.7 … … … 21 68 34.5 8 8 0.6 … 29 … … … … … … … … … … … 18 … 69 30 -15.3 2'179 2'957 4.4 Trade balance (M US$) 2002 … -39 … -6 … -7 … … -20 … … … … -27 … … … … … -18 -26 -3 … … -1'565 -209 -107 … … … … -14 … … -23 -10 … … … -38 -2 … -76 … … … -24 … … -47 … -68 -8 -27 … … … -18 -29 -2'409

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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.R. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.D.R. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income

A-56

14. Equipment trade
Telecom equipment exports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … 1 … … … … … … … … 6 … … 8 … … … … 192 1'258 59.9 … 4 … … … … 2'178 10'042 35.8 5 79.0 … … … … … … … … 1 34.2 … 1 … … 3 … … … … 2 42.8 … … … 1 1 2.2 … 3 … … … … … … … 1 … … … … … … … … 2 … … 1 … … … … … … 1 3 31.7 857 497 -10.3 3 218 137.7 52 45 -3.0 … … … 5 … … 94 140 8.4 … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1 -22.9 756 935 5.5 … … … … 4 … 54 63 3.2 … … … … 17 … … … … 4'193 13'263 25.8 Telecom equipment imports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 9 27 23.8 86 118 11.2 18 16 -2.9 … 92 … 166 54 -24.5 … … … 1'829 518 -22.3 48 91 24.1 5 3 -11.3 2'234 6'370 23.3 835 504 -9.6 … 64 … … … … … … … 174 181 0.8 145 186 5.2 27 59 17.1 … … … 72 202 22.9 … … … 21 32 8.1 401 289 -6.3 51 64 8.2 36 80 17.3 … 101 … … … … … … … 50 297 56.4 … 25 … … … … 66 33 -13.0 340 191 -10.9 1'343 797 -9.9 229 371 10.2 1'306 1'217 -1.4 … … … 59 33 -17.7 1'143 1'167 0.4 … 52 … 2 5 26.1 6 11 22.0 … 8 … … … … 18 29 12.3 1'101 1'893 14.5 … … … 43 99 23.2 711 654 -1.7 … 8 … … … … … … … 12'575 15'940 4.4 Trade balance (M US$) 2002 -26 … … -85 -46 … -636 -87 … 3'673 -498 -63 … … -180 -237 -56 … -200 … -31 -286 … -125 -100 … … -295 -24 … -42 -188 -300 -153 -1'173 … … -1'026 -51 … … -8 … -29 -957 … -96 -591 … … … -3'898

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.R.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income

A-57

Kitts and Nevis St.0 1'050 1'273 4.7 … … … … … … 10 … 21.7 3 19 46.2 114 20 -29.1 91 131 7.5 3 2 -17.9 21 25 3.7 3 6 15.4 92 19 -26.7 22 67 31.4 56 88 9.9 4 4 3.3 4'157 14'929 28.7 1'578 3'991 26.4 … 49 … … … … 110 102 -2.1 … 10 … 2'184 6'902 25.4 … 569 … … 2 … 254 224 -2.9 50 100 14.7 7 8 1.9 … … … … … 39 2'904 136.0 154 187 3.5 74 100 6.7 Telecom equipment imports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 1'094 606 -13. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-58 .1 3 3 1.0 Trade balance (M US$) 2002 -569 … -86 -493 -80 -111 -89 … 124 … -4 1'912 -80 -46 … -83 2'718 -15 4'270 -58 … -1'063 -569 … -195 … -19 -57 -19 -480 4'909 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.1 … … … … 146 … … … … … … 60 29 -13.1 2 4 7. Equipment trade Telecom equipment exports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 34 38 2.6 … … … 78 255 26.14.5 1'761 2'632 8.2 333 993 24.5 … … … 2 6 23.4 … 88 … 457 469 0.9 336 483 9.6 … 4 … … … … 11 19 13.2 … … … … 1 … 4 8 21.9 482 590 4.5 7'362 10'102 5.8 845 1'209 7.6 … 75 … 41 501 64.4 65 63 -0.

3 452 686 11.9 95 215 22.9 … … 1'168 2'132 12.8 466 352 -5.4 70'602 94'579 6.2 628 736 3.9 16 25 12.6 22 48 21.5 822 2'123 20.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.9 456 702 9.0 14.3 1'991 10'772 40.2 … … … … 739 … … … … … … … 1'362 1'876 6.8 … … … 807 2'284 23.6 81'983 1'884 23'173 24'103 31'105 1'719 122'866 2'548 39'442 30'544 48'329 2'003 8.6 … … … 103 69 -7.1 … 50 … 15 27 12.3 3.4 … … … … … … 1'047 2'555 25.7 461 863 13.9 33 34 0.0 2'769 3'922 7.8 1'931 2'284 3. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.9 11.2 10.1 1'049 … … … … … 5'138 7'943 9.8 2. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.2 5.2 … 15 … 4'132 7'385 12.5 8.4 14'035 10'611 -5.1 4'212 6'533 9.9 41 59 7.5 464 684 8.2 3'137 3'906 4.1 59'867 93'867 9.2 28 … … 2'842 3'606 4. Equipment trade Telecom equipment exports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … … … 486 261 -11.9 … … … 2'293 2'839 4.3 -11. see the technical notes. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.9 … … … … 756 … 26 117 34.0 1'716 3'151 12. Source: ITU.7 330 39 -34.3 1'420 1'485 0.1 12'771 29'292 18.2 1'167 2'205 17. A-59 .5 3'361 3'146 -1.0 7'553 8'313 1.0 2 … … 3'834 3'685 -0.2 1.4 1'117 1'113 -0.2 … … 8'569 11'948 6.9 1'273 1'296 0.9 … 11 … 331 252 -5.1 … 68 … 2'031 2'710 5.9 559 1'525 22.1 586 453 -5.3 674 625 -1.8 Trade balance (M US$) 2002 … -1'461 -454 -48 -50 -27 350 … 78 … 161 6'463 2'611 -14 4'563 -471 -8'274 -34 607 1'548 -1'735 1'000 9'288 … -17 … … -1'274 … -184 -273 -622 … 129 -25 -1'641 2'862 -660 … … 7'277 -18'681 992 -406 -2'223 -19'420 693 12'213 -1'659 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.4 586 1'318 17.4 84 119 7.4 2'017 2'170 1.0 Telecom equipment imports CAGR (M US$) (%) 1997 2002 1997-02 … … … 1'388 1'721 4.7 6'710 4'158 -9.5 6'053 4'146 -7.0 1'825 … … … … … 5'109 15'220 24. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.2 944 1'028 1.2 1'741 2'669 8.5 35 62 11.1 4'046 7'166 12.14.1 8.4 79'200 96 20'402 20'043 38'070 589 122'973 166 21'244 30'818 60'426 329 9.9 107 145 6.

19 0. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.01 0.R.38 0.45 0.75 5.01 Users (000s) 2002 41 300 204 50 10 25 8 30 60 5 15 3 5 90 50 2 9 50 25 74 170 35 5 80 16'580 8'000 400 152 15 21 55 27 25 10 150 50 30 25 80 90 15 420 1'500 75 25 11 105 8 2 84 4 80 200 100 275 1'500 100 52 500 32'112 Users per 100 inhab.02 0.22 1.16 0.09 0.41 2.20 0.03 0.84 0.36 0.21 0.02 0.74 1.69 0.11 0.13 0.85 0.08 0.08 1.37 3.55 0.05 0.33 PCs Total (000s) 2002 27 … 450 15 10 19 5 27 90 8 13 4 13 154 … 4 10 100 19 156 82 42 … … 7'500 2'519 204 65 18 … 70 14 15 29 77 69 82 250 85 150 7 853 600 321 … … 200 … 18 200 … 144 150 82 … 800 145 80 600 16'594 Per 100 inhab.16 0.17 0.51 0.01 0.03 1.93 … 0.42 5.45 0.01 0.24 0.06 0.26 0.12 0.33 … 0.77 1. 2002 0.35 0.30 1.74 0. Information technology Hosts Total 2002 7 1'139 2 574 1'242 409 3 1'391 439 6 11 12 36 4'397 134 3 859 41 568 3'032 313 251 20 78'595 61'279 2'963 5'930 281 45 509 17 158 79 2'189 127 1'925 2 1'206 3'370 119 1'030 12'707 517 1'233 1'069 761 277 470 302 1'731 80 2'242 281 529 113 1'621 2'382 201'028 Internet Hosts per 100 inhab.55 … … 0.16 0.01 0.27 0.37 0.17 0.15 0.29 3.07 1.06 0.97 0.38 0.35 1.04 0.01 0.27 0.28 1.25 0.01 0.42 3. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.37 2.01 0.06 0.79 0.09 1.71 0.51 0.45 0.68 0.05 0.55 0.57 0.72 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.01 0.R.13 0. 2002 0.18 0.20 0.05 0.40 0.D.23 4.42 0.19 … 0.01 0.14 1.22 0. 2002 0.31 7.07 0.87 … … 1.15.82 1.33 … 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.15 1.98 0.34 0.13 0.96 1.64 1.34 1.06 0.15 0.71 0.72 1.01 0.61 … 0.03 0.98 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-60 .39 0.49 0.23 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.38 3.04 0.01 0.40 1.02 0.25 2.19 0.75 2.26 0.59 3. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.49 4.44 0.10 0.78 0.12 0.69 0.01 0.98 … 4.46 0.

2002 1.44 2.33 14.73 9.30 2.01 59'100 0.97 4.62 3.32 11.97 6.04 1.36 2.66 2.01 1 0.28 6'000 3.71 7.R.55 2. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.19 7.62 8.02 538 1'900 300 0.80 3.10 3.86 PCs Total (000s) 2002 36 242 60 … 190 … 13'000 405 35 35'500 2'133 359 10 … 403 1'120 163 40 173 24 91 4'900 141 200 … 20 3 700 133 125 200 1'149 2'200 1'500 13'000 1 290 3'300 250 14 20 25 330 … 2'461 2 300 3'000 … 951 3 89'202 Per 100 inhab.90 1.08 3.73 1.15 116'234 Users per 100 inhab.13 20 220 0.12 5.08 307 0.65 6.40 8.93 3.98 4.60 1.14 900 0.34 2.46 4.77 1.94 … 3.92 5.17 7.08 5 0.01 120 0.57 5.84 7.46 … 1.76 4.52 … 3.28 … 7.10 250 15 0.64 3 506 0.64 4.64 4. (000s) 2002 2002 0.05 600 0.10 50 0.58 … 2.29 14'300 0.82 1.60 4.88 1.13 2'000 0.67 2.77 6.36 7.92 8.48 5.01 200 7 20 0.76 2.17 0.39 1.92 5.30 4.16 4 0.05 3'500 0.20 50 … 105 0.46 4.01 12 500 0.19 1'800 0.44 3'100 0.18 1.69 3.06 5.02 270 0.97 2.24 2.01 125 169 0.08 400 0.77 1.16 640 0.27 7 0.28 0. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-61 .07 60 0.04 809 0.22 8.07 2'500 0.11 1.30 2.36 7.22 2.75 … 7.22 5.50 5.62 1.52 4. 2002 0.16 4'800 19.09 3.42 630 0.82 4.02 3.01 700 0.16 3.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.85 22.35 4.15 100 0.07 4.07 0.08 100 0.17 1.67 3.55 300 0.80 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.52 4.16 2.42 1.39 3.09 2.29 4.23 4'900 0.48 3.98 2.58 8.15.15 100 1.94 1. Information technology Hosts Total 2002 172 821 2'850 4'025 1'413 5'702 2'237'527 32'986 48 156'531 55'626 1'133 498 45'508 2'648 3'061 269 785 9'789 63 160 3'491 1'276 4'116 16'562 5 2'680 3'709 … 4'351 19'447 38'440 40'971 409'229 5'705 16'972 198'853 2'335 24 1'329 11 3'167 100'132 19'485 341 154'585 2'020 71'691 551 3'683'093 Internet Hosts per Users 100 inhab.01 3'168 0.16 1.21 2.26 1.04 8 0.01 16 0.87 0.

50 3.09 10.68 11.33 1.90 5.90 0.68 0.91 9.15 15.60 11.85 6.01 0.35 0.31 18.38 17.93 19.77 1. Information technology Hosts Total 2002 495'920 1'498 1'617 135'155 7'725 29'644 226'429 464 63'364 79 14 194'503 35'492 7'199 83 54'605 86'285 3'462 1'107'795 676 7'393 657'495 14'788 266 85'998 2 29 7'209 78'660 24'138 3'327'987 Internet Hosts per 100 inhab.74 8.01 Users (000s) 2002 4'100 30 50 3'575 800 789 2'600 13 444 25 15 1'600 310 400 125 500 7'841 120 10'033 180 120 8'880 1'419 12 863 10 13 138 400 1'274 46'678 Users per 100 inhab.83 4.58 0.01 1.44 31.10 1.95 11.08 18.06 0.08 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.29 1.28 8.20 13.15 15.00 7.75 19.70 0.19 0.92 1.60 0.02 16.56 13.84 17.23 0.25 1.03 32.07 11.21 10.32 0.86 2.55 2.09 0.25 14.72 17.09 0.13 PCs Total (000s) 2002 3'000 35 70 1'796 817 760 1'800 7 285 25 14 1'100 400 275 130 380 3'600 141 8'353 95 115 4'079 3'003 13 970 9 24 104 370 1'536 33'305 Per 100 inhab. Kitts and Nevis St.59 0.64 4.52 0.83 10.76 13.02 0.02 0.31 11.34 10.97 23.00 6.14 23.04 25.05 2. 2002 11.92 14.97 21.35 0.20 11.15.21 1.20 3. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-62 . 2002 8.63 16.92 13.04 19.17 8.06 14.71 2.15 14.01 6.59 4.24 10.04 21.52 16.97 9.97 14. 2002 1.65 8.03 1.68 2.

20 165 0.48 50.33 18'716 1.89 31.68 44.99 159'000 15.19 15.07 38. A-63 .01 60 0. (000s) 2002 2002 0.63 57. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.58 12.14 33.76 5.01 64.43 2'650 2.89 55.38 210 15.94 19.13 8.53 10.41 24.64 427'999 2.99 57.17 34.10 38.14 35.70 26.20 30.87 39.08 24.22 1.90 40.59 0.25 3'400 2.17 42.79 750 1.15 32.68 623'023 9'945 217'649 211'361 172'481 11'587 Users per 100 inhab.14 7.31 55.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.40 42.30 9.14 42.23 24.71 28.80 10 13.46 35 9.38 52.23 25.45 6'359 9.37 2.93 50.45 21.70 2'556 9.83 10.14 44.70 187 3.64 8'590 1.66 … 41.89 46. 2002 … 56.03 62.04 10.23 51.59 2'000 0.22 55.51 46.39 48.63 13.57 2'756 23.21 2'000 1.60 62.67 48.14 34'000 1.28 50.99 1'908 5. Information technology Hosts Total 2002 622 2'564'339 367'933 32 1'339 160 336'604 8'668 2'993'982 2'692 836'631 1'220'062 1'388'681 3'661 2'594'323 160'829 398'151 68'261 136'487 146'791 672'638 9'260'117 407'318 3'261 17'260 150 7'355 3'137'203 5'915 432'957 255'742 164'711 171 338'349 35'791 589'979 849'174 560'902 2'170'233 52'332 2'865'930 115'311'958 150'369'694 157'581'802 243'171 122'555'360 13'390'474 18'358'407 3'034'390 Internet Hosts per Users 100 inhab.85 21. see the technical notes.42 20.86 26'270 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.75 11.85 25'000 39.50 0.50 5'125 7.93 … 16.20 45.06 30 3.91 1.17 40.00 26.06 19.82 48.87 165 0.53 16'110 0.50 1'176 4.68 9.04 9'472 4.14 250 3.51 43.51 36.44 37.26 41.19 10.26 19.26 23. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.79 27. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.47 1'065 2.51 3'340 0.58 37.57 65.15.28 29.83 13.38 14.58 15.24 44.46 12.37 51.49 18.37 8'200 2.46 1'705 5.47 43.62 2'288 1.49 35 3.31 35.09 30.83 25.13 2'100 1.87 2'919 23.95 4. 2002 12.70 42.03 14.44 50.04 20.98 PCs Total (000s) 2002 … 11'111 3'013 … 107 28 2'500 27 15'300 193 3'100 2'300 20'700 70 35'600 900 2'864 130 1'654 1'610 13'025 48'700 26'458 285 265 92 101 7'557 … 1'630 2'405 1'394 110 2'590 600 7'972 5'556 5'160 8'887 450 23'972 190'000 448'416 587'518 9'579 239'717 157'893 167'130 13'199 Per 100 inhab.27 57'200 0.42 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.64 36.13 70.30 28.35 11.03 115 1.64 30 10.03 70 8.86 83 19.06 59. Source: ITU.19 19'900 7.

8 67.40 146.71 20.46 31.00 986.99 Total ISP charge US$ 20.7 175. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.21 Telephone usage charge US$ 58.6 96.9 160.69 7.06 45.00 45. August 2003 Monthly fee US$ 20.36 245.00 15 8.35 48.00 69.35 362.30 * 57.00 14.08 * 20 * 20 * 64.4 43.72 4.64 11.18 10.72 50.78 105.28 42.87 123.81 22.07 1.00 62.3 32.9 22.R.4 30.1 19.00 2.6 50.62 19.50 8.83 24.75 32.58 8.69 38.79 8.00 130.70 8.35 9. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-64 .65 110.15 132.30 15.4 15.83 14.96 22.61 9.33 2.08 1.05 11.00 29.32 66.6 85.3 108.81 97.09 840.00 64.1 31.96 30.37 0.23 ISP charge Hours Excess included time charge US$ * 11.29 8.6 45.49 40.19 48.39 * * 20 * 15 15.4 20.3 57.49 40.37 35.94 11.52 29.64 25.00 28.70 30.00 20.69 16.96 6.38 247.11 8.00 7.07 Total Internet price 20 hours As % of of use GNI per US$ capita 78.3 51.D.84 10.85 683.19 53.16 10.4 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.22 51.00 28.46 9.5 73.00 465.65 14.40 28.75 22.36 110.00 30.62 100 * 8.3 117.00 10. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.00 103.33 16.8 19.1 74.7 15.7 62.1 27.42 25.0 121.64 15.11 8.00 11.54 35.26 31.39 68.00 2.01 33.16 10.8 54.69 0.00 42.0 20.68 * 15 10.22 51.4 30.51 370.83 48.76 348.52 33.04 66.96 289.00 130.08 30.00 40.58 11.01 102.0 57.00 103.50 180.63 103.54 18.88 43.7 23.93 50.11 116.65 550.8 51.63 63.33 20 13 15.29 183.36 134.33 18.26 37.12 13.04 18.42 329.3 89.26 136. Internet tariff 20 hours per month.29 21.09 11.2 42.00 10.87 15.R.7 12.03 148.19 11.56 11.42 5.8 38.66 30.05 32.95 206.33 33.00 45.70 15.87 375.91 33.00 354.5 80.74 12.8 46. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.30 15.79 290.4 40.00 26.37 32.33 336.5 8.56 42.9 91.12 30.85 55.9 68.06 45.00 1.64 113.04 30.5 45.05 11.12 30 * 10 25 * 10.64 118.00 501.37 32.69 103.78 21.00 7.74 12.51 12.69 117.00 7.71 20.04 13.79 22.61 45.9 27.00 20.58 10.27 7.76 1.79 200.48 353.50 60.15 191.56 121.63 34.01 27.71 152.00 18.14 50.6 66.26 185.09 6.04 30.65 14.3 57.40 28.74 21.06 8.28 246.96 57.40 * 8 4.8 63.70 5.81 143.00 69.56 * 6.39 50.7 103.65 66.16.02 5.32 58.05 138.9 13.41 24.68 11.00 11.79 20 * * 30 18.3 66.94 971.7 67.7 130.00 8.2 26.30 177.50 5.50 * 20 * 25 22.90 105.2 105.1 26.00 7.7 20.9 96.75 37.20 20.00 * 10 29.48 70.22 207.29 * 30 10 10.70 30.91 24.52 29.21 * 40.04 807.6 17.00 18.4 43.78 19.01 49.00 20.76 464.83 194.27 49.95 121.75 75.89 23.00 8.

95 3.62 34.00 8.93 15.3 13.10 31.8 40.18 2.40 22.9 28.61 12.4 15.11 35.93 6.5 22.16.00 25.4 10.6 31.40 17 2.00 19.39 17.22 6.78 45.5 26.30 10.33 7.29 13.00 10.2 114.30 20.99 11.48 80 15 0.8 12.94 46.22 15.58 13.83 5.00 10.78 78.8 7.06 10.30 6.00 1.49 27.00 20.80 ISP charge Hours Excess included time charge US$ 30 30 * 8.49 18.33 15.44 30.95 10.33 Total Internet price 20 hours As % of of use GNI per US$ capita 28.78 30.9 5.50 5.32 9.82 12.52 12.97 36.0 18.50 9.74 17.19 46.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.29 17.2 57.38 19.78 15.64 21.71 20 20 7.2 33.00 3.29 17.83 9.16 7.05 8.49 18.10 20 30 20 * 30 20 * 20 5.34 22.3 22.00 10.50 5.2 25.70 51.37 4.75 Total ISP charge US$ 20.45 38.05 20.64 19.00 9.56 52.45 8.4 19.85 25.44 23.26 * 30 * * 15 7.43 18.95 2.7 20.21 8.25 10.05 15.66 6.23 22.24 21.4 44.83 5. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-65 .82 12.2 17.2 43.29 16.69 44.34 18.4 62.16 13.1 10.00 3.79 3.00 9.80 26.30 20.79 68.75 20 1.56 6.00 * * 25 * 20 15 11.1 26.90 153.32 25.93 15.11 27.75 20 29 15 12.5 20.47 4.18 11.75 11.43 5.78 32.73 38.67 20.5 25.80 5. Internet tariff 20 hours per month.25 9.79 11.69 44.10 13.7 17.2 45.44 30.84 18.05 21.12 33.00 11.3 5.9 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.76 23.90 3.89 15 5.94 4.78 16.70 26.0 12.40 13.02 2.43 1.56 2.05 17.44 32.00 30.27 14.70 15.34 37.33 7.00 25.06 7.52 12.84 19.00 3.69 6.4 20.5 48.99 25.00 29.46 11.00 20.93 6.51 28.46 2.98 4.8 17.00 10.62 26.88 24.47 28.00 * * * * * 15 6.54 18.6 42.00 29.30 42. August 2003 Monthly fee US$ 20.56 24.5 33.99 25.3 32.00 10.22 15.83 9.00 11.59 * * * 6.21 11.8 36.00 8.12 33.95 10.00 17.95 10.0 46.22 9.R.21 58.53 2.40 27.32 9.73 25.87 13. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.55 Telephone usage charge US$ 8.9 27.18 14.6 18.05 15.22 20.70 17.2 16.25 * 15 15.32 9.0 55.87 29.3 30.53 0.18 2.3 6.30 42.5 30.1 31.37 13.59 18.8 31.3 33.0 34.83 15.14 13.23 22.12 13.5 20.32 29.94 25.91 6.11 1.21 18.10 10.00 5.00 36.24 0.00 36.90 7.

08 58.83 20 20 * 20 15 4. August 2003 Monthly fee US$ 6.8 36.9 13.6 23.9 121.22 22.22 22.90 3.83 4.75 * 3.81 Total ISP charge US$ 6.20 2.68 15.3 58.00 20.22 4.55 3.06 4.1 25.15 86.37 12.3 19.9 21.95 46.73 13.55 35.83 22.73 19.1 27.67 31.06 11.1 34.84 7.02 19.67 31.00 11.01 15.9 15.00 10.15 4.67 13.06 20.57 5.74 Total Internet price 20 hours As % of of use GNI per US$ capita 13.22 6.88 0.47 30 16.00 30 * 20 20 20 * * 3.46 7.17 10.55 35.83 16.58 3.00 23.00 15.4 20.47 12.70 12.67 4.47 5.57 14.75 3.02 19.01 10.42 2. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-66 .9 91.74 15.9 22.16 20 * 9.67 6.9 57.63 4.87 22.69 18.90 15.02 4.00 * * * * 20.7 22.22 12.9 20.71 6.69 4.00 11.89 3.6 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.22 7.85 21.22 12.70 12.43 2.67 13.16.47 15.5 26.85 21.81 6.06 8.15 34.27 3.22 10.2 8.81 15.0 36.8 34.74 13.6 10.53 15.7 29.79 16.37 57.6 17.69 2.3 13.87 22.00 16.00 16.00 0.74 3.06 21.20 15. Kitts and Nevis St.89 11.7 15.1 18.19 * * 15.84 17.83 22.84 36.26 15.04 ISP charge Hours Excess included time charge US$ * 45.85 Telephone usage charge US$ 6.00 59.5 16.2 22.22 6.3 22. Internet tariff 20 hours per month.59 8.85 15.81 15.73 19.93 4.93 4.

66 17.88 28.44 0.6 25.51 6. see the technical notes.94 26.43 18.22 2.67 2.85 28.92 25.7 17.04 20.7 37.00 39.75 2.1 22.44 9.45 23.7 17.23 22.13 0.62 0.10 1.62 8.71 10.8 9.5 23.7 25.74 1.39 6.87 1.29 12.02 2.64 3.32 21. Internet tariff 20 hours per month.71 10.34 6.12 0.26 5. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.2 24.58 13.20 18.46 5.15 69.00 2.43 Total ISP charge US$ 22.21 1.64 3.65 16.7 7.39 12.95 0.21 1.94 26.38 1.39 27.48 9.44 6.87 14. August 2003 Monthly fee US$ 22.4 29.4 12.58 12.39 8.46 13.73 32.30 14.13 20.9 11.29 1.58 2.73 32.87 1.86 21.32 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.09 31.14 * * * * 7.69 22.29 14.91 17.35 31.2 28.10 0.66 0.3 24.82 20.78 36.63 21.1 26.47 25.32 5.8 18.12 24.70 14.94 1.04 0.63 * * 1.92 1.29 8. * Unlimited access.04 12.47 25.12 3.29 4.65 1.1 14.09 7.29 12.18 22.47 4.0 21.93 0.00 39.02 21.1 20.97 12.0 39.9 28.22 15.8 39.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.1 25.10 37.2 80.65 16.48 * 7.22 15.7 241.13 1.71 11.89 16.16.3 27.85 0.30 14.7 6.66 1.7 36.08 0.66 1.04 4.53 1.86 * * * 10 8.0 18.8 20.56 28.85 28.16 27.32 43.12 3.3 21.51 1. A-67 .67 29.64 3.66 0.88 28.98 11.02 2.9 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.48 5. Source: ITU.29 21.7 22. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.58 Telephone usage charge US$ 2.4 12.05 20.30 7.71 0.08 23.62 8.9 3.15 69.00 * 25 * * * * * * 16.8 23.91 20.42 32.0 29.87 14.20 18.21 1.84 88.49 11.52 12.95 17.1 16.29 14.5 16.39 1. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.7 13.15 ISP charge Hours Excess included time charge US$ 20 * * * * 40 * 24 100 * 20 * 20 20 30 * 20 * 150 8.39 22.02 2.29 0.7 22.27 1.8 69.5 48.20 1.92 25.15 0.67 29.94 4.52 12.06 24.95 16.44 3.8 14.10 37.66 17.57 22.39 12.15 4.9 12.98 0.26 Total Internet price 20 hours As % of of use GNI per US$ capita 22.91 60.1 32.2 14.2 22.56 14.88 3.12 16.78 36.50 39.

6 2.8 10.0 0.0 21.3 1.7 1.0 4.8 1.5 4.1 1.8 0.2 200.8 6.1 … … 1'670.0 4.0 0.5 0.1 2.4 32.5 0.4 3.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 3.0 2.0 7.0 0.0 0.6 … … 154.6 0.0 3.0 2.1 0.0 68.0 0.9 3'376.1 0.5 9.7 17.2 1.3 2.0 15.5 2.1 10.3 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 6.7 … 183.5 1.0 7.0 0.7 10.0 72.1 10. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-68 .1 8.5 11.R.0 0.3 1.4 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.2 79.0 600.0 1.0 12.0 2.8 174.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 350.7 4.0 0.0 30.8 208.6 12.3 0.0 0.5 … … 12.0 0.3 2.R.D.2 30.3 11.1 0.0 6.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 34.7 18.5 6.0 0.2 82.7 2. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.2 International bandwidth Total Bits per (Mbps) inhabitant 2002 2002 7.0 27.0 0.2 10.5 15.3 5.7 5.0 4.3 1.6 2.6 410.0 3'640.9 25.0 6.0 0.0 1.4 20.0 0.9 1.6 40.7 56.9 143.3 1.8 0.1 0.5 10.17.5 0.0 13.6 15.8 6.5 1.0 5'423.3 31.4 2.9 0.3 2.3 0.0 2.0 2.6 1.2 0.2 6.4 119.9 Broadband Total As % of total (000s) subscribers 2002 2002 0.0 7.0 0.9 CAGR (%) 2001-2002 … … 164.7 … 144.3 2.5 12.5 0.6 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 6.0 0.6 9.4 8.3 4.8 15.0 45.9 8.8 0.0 0.4 53.9 2.0 11.0 11. Internet Internet subscribers (000s) 2002 … 12.0 2.3 20.6 573. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.4 2.1 0.6 8.5 7.0 2.1 10.0 13.3 16.4 6.3 40.0 2.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 11.0 0.7 20.0 0.8 9.0 0.0 13.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.8 1.

0 16.8 665.7 1.9 … 194.4 6.0 … … 1.0 520.0 0.0 15.9 … … 10.4 … 475.1 314.7 … 929.0 60.8 … 11.1 21.0 5.0 130.2 41.0 816.0 9.0 10.2 … 1.7 15.0 0.1 0.3 1'132.1 1.0 24.4 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.0 1.8 4.7 … … 0.0 9.9 7.3 0.0 62.5 20.2 0.1 79.0 3.5 11.5 69'762.0 9.0 1'500.0 17.7 55.0 … 1'890.0 30.7 79.0 8.0 34.0 8.0 20.6 2.6 15.9 … 16.6 16.8 937.9 48.0 1.0 8.1 3.5 70.2 0.0 1.2 0.3 310.0 75.0 7.1 0.3 437.0 45.0 73.8 52.5 34.8 874.9 49'700.0 4.1 6.8 8'967.0 20.0 3.2 28.5 12.8 735.2 90.9 50.0 6.5 4.3 210.6 550.8 6.2 17.8 9'380.0 175.9 3.2 2.0 25.6 2.5 53.0 87.8 100. Internet Internet subscribers (000s) 2002 10.0 4.0 4'300.0 10.0 18.5 4.5 100.0 … … 166.3 18.1 4.3 5.5 10.0 4.6 … 20.2 25.0 72.0 0.0 6.3 2.0 7'900.7 252.9 44'039.5 8.5 3.8 8.0 0.0 24.6 9'340.2 … 1.4 73.0 9.3 2.3 5'600.5 CAGR (%) 2001-2002 … … … 220.9 1.7 … 94.17.1 18.3 … … 1'340.7 475.0 5.9 6. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-69 .5 3'170.5 1.0 2.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.0 16.3 61.0 2.8 0.1 6.5 27.1 10.0 263.0 10.0 16.1 0.0 2.1 51.0 11.6 21.4 4.2 95.0 … 0.8 2.0 2.2 1'947.3 26.9 77.R.1 49.9 43.2 Broadband Total As % of total (000s) subscribers 2002 2002 0.9 156.5 2.9 564.1 0.3 12.0 18. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.0 International bandwidth Total Bits per (Mbps) inhabitant 2002 2002 12.0 32.0 0.6 890.6 0.3 … … 2'446.2 2.0 1.0 0.0 35.4 90.6 82.3 1'220.3 2'260.0 89.0 8.0 3.2 1'010.0 3.0 800.2 731.0 25.2 5.0 75.0 … 1.

0 94.4 10'642.9 134.0 48.0 121.4 200.0 57.6 … 37.8 26.0 1.0 42.0 930.0 66.6 46.0 27.0 … 337.0 26.9 180.3 314.5 2'633.4 66'108.0 1'644.1 4.0 26.0 15.1 5'825.0 1'048.3 0.0 163.2 8'153.6 177.0 2.3 0.1 328.0 12'150.6 … 354.1 482.7 228.8 … 557.2 15.3 33.0 17.0 34.1 1'981.1 5.0 8.4 0.9 690.0 10.5 10.3 2'044.0 2.8 96.2 … … 246.0 73.4 International bandwidth Total Bits per (Mbps) inhabitant 2002 2002 5'476.1 7.7 6'316.6 45.1 96.8 182.6 2.1 … 824.0 95.0 1'516.17.9 20.2 22'206.0 … 99.4 4.6 111.0 181.4 12.5 25.8 0.2 0.0 5.9 37.0 41.0 28.7 3.9 884.6 297.0 64.2 45.2 128.0 Broadband Total As % of total (000s) subscribers 2002 2002 115. Internet Internet subscribers (000s) 2002 1'430.1 0.7 0.2 38.5 121.4 … 114.4 283.9 445.0 188.0 550.9 6.0 621.6 275.0 12.9 0.6 4.3 0.9 0.3 7.0 8.0 42.0 50.2 15.0 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.6 14.0 14.0 74.8 436.7 37.5 53.7 130. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-70 .7 1'320.7 … … … 357.2 149.7 14.3 0.0 757.9 264.5 35.4 0.9 0.3 555.2 43.0 131.4 538.0 181.0 6.1 19. Kitts and Nevis St.6 60.5 1.3 309.0 4.5 24.6 6.2 15.0 2.3 423.8 34.0 409.0 2'189.0 20.1 CAGR (%) 2001-2002 135.5 206.

1 1'039.0 2'441.0 381'692.2 47.0 43.9 11.7 3'205.3 4'500.0 1'403.2 205.0 10'611.0 29'562.2 409.2 197.5 14'032.6 International bandwidth Total Bits per (Mbps) inhabitant 2002 2002 28.5 10.9 235.6 1'683.9 17.6 259.2 222.5 … … 1'469.2 20.6 145.4 175.1 14.7 … 42.0 50.9 19'881.0 30.0 391.2 850.3 18.1 200.0 388.8 2'172.8 169.5 13'100.5 200'000.2 2'446.1 24.3 60'564.6 2'081'892.7 1'821. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.3 3'515.0 13.0 9'092.0 3'185.1 24'818.5 290.1 229.9 173.0 700.6 1.0 5'800.4 … … 84'024.0 292.3 214.0 2'195'417.17.3 9'040.5 31.0 489.8 1'197.0 279.8 153.0 2'100.7 67'627.5 100'715.5 1'323.5 2.3 … 423.0 13. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.4 1'615.0 464.7 22'696.9 533.2 16.0 9.7 2.0 3'924.4 440.7 43.9 5'367.5 455.0 66.9 603.5 45.0 20'319.7 4'019.1 8'985.7 4.2 65'827.7 2.0 4.4 869.7 1'069.1 4'985.0 18.3 109'204.1 5'898.4 25'578.0 23.4 5.0 10'326.0 3'434.1 8'113.5 0.9 155.0 359.0 1'144.8 16'587.1 17.6 539.0 2'372.4 169.7 17'207.2 19.6 7.2 168.8 152.8 3'158.9 237.1 155.5 18.9 … 1'694.0 70'000.6 237.7 50.0 1'212.8 … 337.9 269.0 539.5 1'418.1 260'667.1 319'663.0 232.2 5'165. Internet Internet subscribers (000s) 2002 … 4'600.5 5.8 221.2 185.7 1'085.6 302.5 363.9 36'076.0 13.0 24'500.2 1'416.2 270.7 60.3 303'405.8 10.2 1.3 14.7 CAGR (%) 2001-2002 210. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.8 716.9 27.0 290. A-71 .7 30'285.9 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.1 133.0 36.0 254.3 530.3 251.6 5.0 12'838.5 32.3 526.9 114'952.0 584.0 12'668.1 5.8 1'575'412.4 56.6 14'790.1 22.1 19.3 … 468.8 91'863.0 79.4 5.2 8.0 216'069.4 89'273.0 180.0 4'421.0 213.6 154.9 5.4 … 178.5 656.0 7'442.3 2'333.0 28.0 10'497.0 15.3 94'896. Source: ITU.4 123.5 155.6 1'077.9 6.2 193.0 0.0 2.0 3'353.8 24.8 280.5 189.8 68.3 5'410.0 64'737.5 3'187.9 231.6 46'554.6 145.3 20.0 311.0 273.1 1'866.7 216.0 52. see the technical notes.0 175.6 504'117.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.5 96.0 19.7 26.0 361.5 102.0 Broadband Total As % of total (000s) subscribers 2002 2002 258.0 36.0 2'275.0 2'841.5 18.0 236.5 361.9 7.9 89'605.0 1'108.5 217.8 0.5 2'020.9 325.1 13'501.7 195.5 10'784.0 3'293.8 10'405.0 51.0 1'247.5 6.0 1'200.0 5'624.0 135. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.4 167'232.0 515.5 2'303.4 23.0 956.1 215.5 … 5.9 1'977.8 1'031.1 22.0 236.0 19.5 22.

2 365 11.6 39.3 4'486 83.9 580 22.1 11'000 46.1 600 34.5 90 1.2 Population coverage 2002 85 100 98 85 90 95 99 74 100 … 95 100 … 100 … … 100 81 100 95 100 80 75 80 99 … 95 98 65 80 … 80 95 100 100 98 90 80 80 … 85 … 97 … … 98 100 100 80 100 79 90 100 100 99 90 … 70 90 96 Television Households As % of total (000s) households 2002 2002 650 24.4 250 14.8 16.6 12 3.6 70 6.3 58.7 3 4.3 41.4 41.7 684 60.7 103.0 8'250 39. Broadcasting Households (000s) 2002 450 1'800 7'994 700 92 1'500 575 949 1'244 177 1'230 50 200 1'500 1'000 … 600 2'000 107 1'000 1'700 820 210 840 67'415 40'000 5'894 500 421 120 1'100 1'205 1'500 485 936 … 2'275 232 1'800 690 720 13'000 7'300 … 800 15 848 400 … 7'000 … 2'400 700 4'021 2'700 8'500 1'500 1'200 1'600 204'014 Radio As % of total households 2002 16.4 4'000 90.5 13'021 79.9 30'000 55.8 … 36.9 40 22.0 120.2 450 21.D.6 1'000 40.5 49.5 1'400 20.0 240 5.2 54.8 910 46.R. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.3 53.1 86.4 102.4 … … 150 18.1 66.0 51.6 320 3.9 250 2.2 43.6 15. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.8 18 2.R.5 … 55.7 886 79.5 60.5 … 130.6 7'850 30.3 … … 161 29.8 920 21.4 31.9 260 29.8 75.3 61.2 225 47.18.0 19 11.1 34.9 421 25.7 35 5.1 55 2.6 533 24.3 930 83.1 45.1 43.1 53.7 416 51.9 70 16.5 74. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-72 .2 1'100 39.8 50 6.8 14 0.2 442 8.0 2.6 81.5 10 35.2 45.9 85.1 550 13.0 23.3 355 30.1 928 75.2 Population coverage 2002 35 100 92 80 7 70 86 60 70 … 13 … … 100 … … 85 13 100 96 95 70 … 50 89 88 65 98 40 10 … 70 90 44 99 95 … 70 32 … 70 … 89 … 60 70 90 … … 93 85 65 100 … 99 … … 42 60 83 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.2 76.4 78.2 159'883 35.6 698 10.1 78.5 61. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.4 34.1 52.5 33.0 27.5 85.7 45.1 2'500 143.4 86.8 90 5.9 3 1.1 190 13.3 90 8.6 35.0 69.2 560 59.0 62.9 60'650 31.2 53.3 76.5 … 35.8 38.4 73.4 … 75.5 35 1.0 27.

7 71.4 3'473 91.6 30 18.2 100.4 48.9 … 65.7 79.8 38 40.9 2'284 78.8 2'554 88.0 310'000 89.5 57.0 … … 39 39.8 … 87.R.8 29 67.1 132 37.5 … 74.3 70.1 … 108.6 2'836 88.1 950 87.4 … … 87.5 86 62.9 … 82.6 50'975 98.7 … … 4'100 76.7 63.3 40. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-73 .7 … 123.4 … … 720 47.9 41.9 4'466 88.4 11'070 76.8 12'407 85.9 1'050 40.0 858 93.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.2 84.3 2'825 80.9 … … 1'816 88.4 Population coverage 2002 95 95 98 99 … 100 89 94 78 95 92 98 75 100 95 … … 46 100 80 90 97 85 … 97 … … 88 48 75 80 77 60 99 99 98 90 91 92 95 … 85 … … 96 70 100 98 100 95 … 84 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.4 16'072 108.3 2 5.1 4'736 … 12'200 76.6 469 65.4 840 93.0 41.6 … … 83.9 … 56.8 … … 80.8 17'141 97.6 555'261 89.6 69.4 6'400 86.8 6'783 66. Broadcasting Households (000s) 2002 600 3'500 350 1'549 1'573 … 41'795 … 62 … 10'947 … 55 2'100 2'894 10'000 … 145 1'960 … 1'104 12'000 … 660 1'566 … … 4'658 310 385 … 4'506 13'300 3'010 … 20 … 8'433 3'000 … 67 95 … … 12'178 … 1'570 6'760 410 … … 151'561 Radio As % of total households 2002 82.0 … 82.6 48.2 83.4 945 69.2 Population coverage 2002 95 95 100 100 … 100 88 100 84 93 98 100 80 100 100 95 100 97 100 85 90 98 90 … 73 100 … 95 98 95 94 100 86 90 93 100 90 95 100 100 … … … … 99 100 100 99 100 86 … 93 Television Households As % of total (000s) households 2002 2002 655 89.1 762 90.5 1'500 31.6 45.8 … 76.2 8'130 92.3 … 78.6 … … 59 65.7 2'266 76.0 23 96.7 … 85.2 42'779 89.9 440 94.0 880 46.18.6 2'341 91.1 82.9 … … 77.0 89.1 460 … 15'400 97.7 1'240 84. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.

8 92.3 3'934 95.1 660 92. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-74 .0 800 84.2 97.6 300 78.9 18 76.4 1'312 96.8 97.7 Population coverage 2002 … 100 85 99 98 99 99 100 100 80 100 91 100 95 100 90 … 100 98 97 81 95 … 98 99 … 100 100 100 98 95 Television Households As % of total (000s) households 2002 2002 9'800 97.4 81.4 86.1 77.4 98.1 72.6 93.3 3'205 96.7 93.8 79.7 4'602 88.1 95.0 19 35.0 520 91.0 11 70.6 81.5 98.0 98.2 1'520 93. Broadcasting Households (000s) 2002 8'000 40 325 4'108 900 1'510 3'117 20 550 145 30 3'500 794 700 700 1'300 3'784 260 19'142 300 594 12'501 3'000 19 1'520 14 44 340 950 5'035 73'242 Radio As % of total households 2002 81.3 554 77.1 30 93.5 78.4 1'681 100.3 99.4 95.6 3'940 102.1 92.0 87.0 790 79.8 100 50.2 86.8 80.2 79.3 930 93.5 18 91.6 750 90.0 296 85.0 84.4 90.6 98.0 95.9 79'282 92.18.6 90.8 3'599 96. Kitts and Nevis St.2 62 15.4 12'125 92.8 38 79.3 83.0 4'300 82.6 23'093 93.2 99.9 276 89.6 Population coverage 2002 … … 30 99 95 99 100 90 100 70 … 97 99 95 100 98 … 98 97 94 58 99 … 98 96 … 100 89 100 97 88 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.

5 98.0 70.9 4'057 93.8 1'980 100.8 75 85.6 91.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao. A-75 .4 1'330 97.4 160 93.5 88.8 54.9 3'030 99.3 59 98.2 7'000 99.3 99.3 86.1 95.1 123 93.2 … 98.5 92.0 95.8 104 96.1 450 95.4 88.3 11'802 99.5 99. Broadcasting Households (000s) 2002 18 7'120 2'898 80 100 95 3'024 … 11'200 225 2'275 2'275 … 42 33'334 … … 99 1'262 … … 46'000 … 450 170 100 … 7'000 46 … 1'950 3'094 … 920 627 12'937 4'000 2'741 5'400 430 19'200 104'425 273'538 702'355 89'478 223'512 247'235 134'757 7'373 Radio As % of total households 2002 90.0 82.0 … … 99.2 … … 97.5 2'148 99.8 1'287 96.9 3'510 97.2 23'411 95.6 78.2 80 82.9 … 80.8 13'674 92.3 48'000 99.5 4'290 99.0 96.3 59.5 95.8 987 98.8 3'250 97.2 94.5 Population coverage 2002 … 100 100 … 100 100 100 … 99 98 100 100 … … 100 … … 98 100 95 … 100 98 100 100 100 99 100 95 100 100 95 100 100 96 100 100 99 96 100 99 99 98 86 69 94 91 99 98 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.4 69.8 6'655 96.2 2'379 96.4 91. Source: ITU.4 44 78.2 222 97.1 … 114.2 69.6 … 99.18.2 96.0 3'561 99.5 13'400 98.4 80.7 99.0 … 99.8 113.7 7'100 94.3 38.8 357'181 97.2 95.7 84.5 93.0 50 92.0 94.8 98.0 96.7 … 99.9 2'163 91. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.6 23'800 97.6 101 96.1 500 93.9 1'666 92.0 89.6 20'900 97. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.2 78. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.5 106'642 97.4 76 107. see the technical notes.9 67.1 1'151'607 57'975 229'250 574'458 281'196 8'728 75.0 36'350 93.1 125 80. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.3 Population coverage 2002 … 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 … … 100 … … 100 100 95 … 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 98 100 100 99 98 100 99 99 99 95 93 96 95 96 100 Television Households As % of total (000s) households 2002 2002 20 90.6 620 90.

8 0.2 15.5 55.6 0.6 2.0 2.8 … … … … 5.0 0.0 56.0 … … … … … 11.9 … … … … 10.1 … 2.2 22.0 1.5 0.2 93. 44.0 2.0 0.0 45.2 … 4.8 0.R.7 … 1.6 … 1..0 0.1 2.1 … … … … 0.9 … … 0.1 5.3 1.6 6.0 10.2 36.D.1 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.2 1.9 … … … … 65.4 … … … … 0.0 2.0 … … … … … … … … … … … 4.6 93.7 … … 59.0 0.1 15.1 1.0 83.4 0. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.4 9.8 Cable modem subscribers Total As % of cable (000s) TV subscribers 2002 2002 0.4 … … 59.8 … … … … … … … … … 58.9 … … 11. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-76 .9 0.5 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 61.0 … 40'000. Multichannel TV Cable TV subscribers Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 12.2 6.1 … … … … … 13.3 0.2 … … … 4'000.0 13.6 1.1 0.3 0.0 Home satellite antennas Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 7.1 0.0 66.9 4.9 1.6 … 45.0 4..1 8.3 2.9 0.0 7.3 … 2.8 5'007.6 … … 6.0 5.0 24.3 .5 32.5 0. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.5 25.2 … … … … … … … … … 0.4 44'310.3 … … … … … … 1.7 1.7 … … 40.R.0 27.0 0.3 … 0.2 3'600.2 241.2 … … … … 500.0 9.0 2.5 … 25.1 28.5 0.0 70.1 … … 3.19.9 … … … … 1.9 24.9 31.6 0.0 0.1 1.8 … 86.7 … … … … … 2.

1 … … … … 800.7 … … 3.0 5.0 5.7 120.0 184.2 310.2 1.0 7.4 0.0 … … 5.1 … … 285.1 … … … 18.5 Home satellite antennas Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 240.0 22.4 … … 6. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-77 .9 5. Multichannel TV Cable TV subscribers Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 7.19.9 … … 1'936.7 443.0 0.7 891.9 0.1 … … 502.2 36.3 … … … … … … 437.4 2'940.2 13.4 0.5 0..2 18..0 15.9 Cable modem subscribers Total As % of cable (000s) TV subscribers 2002 2002 … .0 11.0 3.8 … … 16'499.6 18. … .0 … … 0.6 5.6 … 765.0 0.5 13...4 5.1 … … … 0.8 2'368.0 86.7 729..8 … … … … … … … 328..1 … … … … 1.1 … … … … 78.1 … … … … … 30.1 312.1 … … 3.9 190.6 8.0 0.6 … … … … … … 144.0 1'243..3 27.2 … … 60.0 2.0 1'624.0 80.0 9. … .5 0.3 1.4 12.0 92.9 0.0 20.0 9.R.6 17.2 320.0 … 1'265.1 577.0 7. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.5 0.1 … … 1'552.0 30.6 0. 131.1 3'300.0 31.0 40.0 51.1 4.2 … … … … 954.0 0.6 6'396.3 .9 … … 96'380.5 … … … 816.1 74..0 44.1 7.2 35.9 2. 0..2 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.1 … … … … 25.8 … … 330.5 3.4 .0 5.4 1.7 1.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.7 4'119.4 31.2 0.0 5.6 7.0 12.0 5.2 0.0 … … 141.2 106..0 0.9 0.0 1.5 3.0 24.8 22.0 2.0 … 2'095.4 20.0 7.. 0. … .0 25.9 20.4 0.3 … … 118'916..

0 35. 20.2 … … 260. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-78 .1 … … 13.8 … … 2'480. Kitts and Nevis St.6 2'060.4 331.0 … … 90.3 … .0 45. Multichannel TV Cable TV subscribers Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 5'900..8 31..7 … … 3'529.5 10.8 10.5 21..7 … … … … … … 420.1 6.0 20.0 22.4 … 965.5 587. 12.2 … … 684.9 13.2 3.0 … … … 1'727.0 … 470.5 40.0 10.0 36.0 19.0 0.0 4.8 93.9 915.8 35.9 300.7 8.9 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.0 75.0 35.0 … 19.. 67.4 470.0 15.4 7.0 … .0 100.9 … 110.8 Cable modem subscribers Total As % of cable (000s) TV subscribers 2002 2002 46.4 Home satellite antennas Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 300.0 … … … 826.0 39.0 10.1 … 308..2 .0 28.0 0.2 … … … … 2'500.0 42.2 1.7 … … 145.0 0.0 27.3 23.4 945.6 0.19.9 21..3 1.2 1.4 12.3 … 620.2 3.9 15.4 29.8 15.0 14.3 1.9 … … … … … … … … … … 10'435.2 … … … … 864.0 3.0 60.9 64.0 0.0 … 980.0 17.3 18'430.0 13.0 1.0 0.0 … 126.

see the technical notes.1 12.7 7.7 5.0 0.1 3.0 6.1 Home satellite antennas Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 … … 575.9 0.3 43.3 22'342.0 22. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.9 13'390.7 2'789.0 40.0 56.6 96'628.8 23'972.7 44'957.7 22'287.4 1'262.1 … … 300.6 70.6 188.0 48.2 13.6 21.3 4.6 3'989.4 34.1 5.1 24.4 255.6 4. Source: ITU.7 16.6 35.6 361.4 145.2 115.2 48.1 0.3 Cable modem subscribers Total As % of cable (000s) TV subscribers 2002 2002 140.7 7'868..4 33.7 12.9 290.7 99'665.9 5.5 180'747.3 25.1 1'624.0 28.5 20.4 11'369.1 30.0 23.0 54.9 7.5 3'880.0 8.0 43.4 4'642.2 14.0 45.9 2'200.3 2.1 562.5 … … 6'849.7 59.7 320.4 45.4 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.8 260.6 510.8 615.2 239.0 43.5 6'447.2 113.0 90.2 2'739.3 66.8 425.5 9.3 90.7 18.1 15.0 37.5 23'406.1 6.0 35.3 500.2 73'525.9 286.7 1'221.2 15.0 20.6 47.3 22.5 1'090.5 52.6 2.5 351'097.8 … … 3'380.0 73. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.9 … … 270.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.0 13.8 64.7 15.3 0.5 … … 138.0 … … 65.4 23'332.2 225.6 17.5 800.2 2'069.2 6.8 33. A-79 .6 42.0 21.5 342.5 1'995.9 8.0 0.0 11.6 11.8 352.0 25.8 67'722.5 16.0 1.6 17.0 28.1 1'076.0 6.7 40.0 1.0 12.3 960.0 9.3 0.0 51.2 9'192.9 0.6 154. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.0 12.19.0 86.8 0.0 28.8 2'550.0 26.7 14.5 247. 353.7 13'650.0 14.2 68.1 1'560.4 54.8 … … 1'609.2 207.9 71'974.3 6'500.0 48.8 14.0 33.0 7.7 884.4 15.9 169'439.0 36.0 35.1 840.4 1'558.0 … 33.7 1'078.1 42..8 17'890.6 6'177.1 3'430.7 8.5 5.8 14.5 45.2 11'577.7 45.6 9.6 811.7 5.9 3'701.0 16.7 19.2 5.3 1'040.0 0.7 10.5 16.3 0. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.2 31.0 8.1 28.1 77.7 0.3 6.6 0.1 … … 7.7 20'630.4 95.9 850.1 … … 650.4 108.0 .6 … … 800. Multichannel TV Cable TV subscribers Total As % of TV (000s) households 2002 2002 … … 1'500.4 5.3 80.0 2.5 16.4 7.0 12.0 10.0 92.5 24.9 9.0 69.9 … … 27.0 14.0 5.0 30.4 35.

59 851 10.49 5.16 2.82 312 3.22 20.22 2.70 1'156 2.53 0.23 2.34 3.34 7.15 9.61 0.91 4'787 2.36 … … … 95 0.97 95 0.41 1'596 4.93 42 1.05 35 0.19 0. Tomé & Principe Senegal Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Sudan Tajikistan Tanzania Togo Uganda Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Low Income A-80 . Projections Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 114 0.13 6.05 1'060 2.28 1'023 10.22 5.17 1.91 47 2.02 0.35 13.02 107 1.39 376 3.14 109 0.29 12.89 0.27 46 0.40 110 1.19 15 0.75 1'144 11.63 1 0.40 485 0.25 60 0.82 0.66 59'770 3.43 98 0.81 115 1.85 1.53 73 6.70 0.74 9'756 1.69 2.958 1.22 0.55 7'547 4.20 933 13.20 21 0.32 1.02 1.75 1.07 21.R.85 312 1.59 1.47 89 0.34 12.50 3.32 0.13 89'051 1.85 84 0.47 2.18 22 0.23 7.74 3'187 4.09 0.43 0.90 1.83 3.21 27 0.84 4.52 9.09 1'538 2.38 … 0.49 1.34 3.12 32 2.80 149 1.58 0.62 … … … 326 6.23 0.78 4.42 29 0.40 341 1.02 271 0.40 338 1.03 3.27 1.31 1.26 146 5.29 140 0.90 507 7.66 26 0.06 5.05 1.35 44 0.36 2.27 5.95 2.76 4.00 1.28 0.27 0.50 9'723 3.83 357 2.11 263 3.07 4.74 1.82 8 0.88 … … … 214 1.75 3.37 0.87 68 1.54 605 9.29 1'185 0.37 256 2.53 0.06 4.39 151 0.42 269 3.21 17.91 67 0.05 63 1.12 1.46 0.20 3.13 187 7.36 53 0.78 4.33 942 16.13 27 0.51 0.78 149 4.79 81 0.10 0.15 0.98 145 0.05 1'434 6.40 10 4.49 10 0.43 237 8.70 0.42 21'537 5.D.04 133 0.17 19 1.97 98'133.80 3.22 0.21 362 0.50 0.04 2.47 0.72 9.31 85 0.93 556 1.93 1.35 2.27 9.21 656 2.26 0.61 484 2.67 5 1.04 314 0.65 6. Chad Comoros Congo Côte d'Ivoire D.18 1.20 1'179 0.21 4.82 1.50 1'886 0.32 0.35 192 1.48 0.54 0.02 15 1.38 2'993 1.98 5.70 1.69 11. Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Georgia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti India Indonesia Kenya Kyrgyzstan Lao P.42 430 1.50 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 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Angola Azerbaijan Bangladesh Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Rep.75 7.51 26'295 1.11 6.3 2.18 2.40 2.49 369 0.92 1'046 5.57 46 0.59 2.20.03 2'886 2.14 2.33 34 0.49 9.65 4.73 3.89 9.84 9.04 2.30 1.70 391 3.03 1.81 1.74 2.88 2'367 0.57 3.65 1'053 1.36 11 0.74 1.07 0.17 1'721 6.85 Cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 195 0.67 0.39 67 1.01 667 0.81 183 3.46 1'317 2.69 11.92 1.83 178 1.14 19.17 158 1.21 … … … 189 0.00 425 7.34 0.25 6.54 185 1.41 1.95 446 1. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Mozambique Myanmar Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Rwanda S.R.

63 65.20 12.06 23.98 7'944 20.25 4'673 10.22 2'406 1.17 0.16 0.45 3'430 8.31 259 4.00 11.04 11.93 352 8.89 29.2 16.34 10.71 7.00 650 27.66 5.77 38.38 11'719 11. Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Guyana Honduras Iran (I.35 14.53 10.36 246 1.00 606'477.67 844 2.39 36.35 1'853 6.67 3'322 29.05 18'740 19.73 4.78 12.06 21.29 19.35 135 2.54 224 8.31 362 4.47 3'724 4.06 11'489 21.70 28.88 1'513 11.06 392 9.70 71 6.74 14.04 15.14 12.95 2'917 12.30 58 9.35 37'026 26.98 35 3.83 38.15 16.55 140 6.62 12.11 103 9.97 793 3.98 0.31 14 5.94 737 10.75 623'766 15.93 117 11.40 2'517 13.43 11.20.46 2'061 4.48 84.42 22.28 14.29 13.99 22.53 100 9.35 2'254 53.04 966 10.43 11 1.53 13 8.03 99 10.97 11.67 29.17 4.75 39.98 1 0.44 2'151 6.12 28.26 10.99 356'073 16.91 654 6.44 23.00 41'345 24.15 6.66 34.13 3 1.42 4'738 19.54 31 23.29 2'629 23.03 41'748 20.16 360 16.15 8 0.38 34.13 7 3.48 6.46 2'249 20.67 21.88 101 14.86 2'145 13.R.58 50 2.76 15.61 23.28 7.15 11.13 22.09 6.74 7.27 3.45 8'713 17.50 1.69 30.98 102 15.15 8'234 8.54 17'445 30.32 16.02 13.66 13.31 1'277 19.45 732 5. Projections Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 380 7.16 1'287 4.13 30.01 30.76 7.92 6. Vincent Suriname Swaziland Syria TFYR Macedonia Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine Vanuatu Lower Middle Income A-81 .56 8'147 10.12 Cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 1'995 27.36 27'542 34.83 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Albania Algeria Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bosnia Brazil Bulgaria Cape Verde China Colombia Cuba Djibouti Dominican Rep.69 7.96 40 3.35 4.03 389 7.66 26.20 5 7.16 1'842 6.32 30.45 777 12.26 24.62 14.87 6.09 28.07 6'409 10.63 33.80 2.97 13.90 14.22 28.55 44'005 12.17 4'406 33.89 6.60 6.73 9.94 33.) Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Maldives Marshall Islands Morocco Namibia Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Romania Russia Samoa Serbia and Montenegro South Africa Sri Lanka St.81 4.10 6.94 19.27 6'706 23.57 32.27 1'701 22.73 2'945 12.50 12.28 2'848 36.58 557 14.76 14 11.68 9.52 23.61 84 16.04 16.56 932 11.66 28.38 2'399 28.04 57.46 11.35 3.91 25.35 25.59 603 17.54 1.89 1'013 13.08 54'559 22.89 17'794 18.94 386'260 16.40 3.99 1'793 11.05 9.88 25.71 133 22.95 644 5.00 2'279 3.66 9.03 1'183 7.93 11.66 1'124 23.48 25.10 6.14 36 10.56 3'745 25.69 1'090 4.30 60.95 19'722 28.02 444 4.38 16.31 40 0.78 7'269 6.91 33.

60 338 24.77 2'676 47.96 28.60 90.45 28.64 28.85 12'117 29.04 25.45 27 26.53 31.50 21.82 21.00 14.95 3'934 54.38 1'268 39.53 85.56 73'251.13 7.11 29.75 9 7.03 20.10 15.35 66.88 24.24 132'188 30.04 3'477 36.91 411 35.98 25.67 144 8.21 55 31.18 1'288 25.72 9.39 15.37 174 8.23 24 2.48 675 11.15 26 50.58 9'378 67.05 29.61 67 20.44 444 28.39 31.59 3'081 53.81 869 19.91 33.72 47.26 50.58 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Argentina Belize Botswana Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic Dominica Estonia Gabon Grenada Hungary Latvia Lebanon Libya Lithuania Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Oman Panama Poland Saudi Arabia Seychelles Slovak Republic St.00 52.50 72.07 673 18.31 7'579 25.12 33.20.16 25 30.56 19'394 36.83 52.06 33.75 973 27.43 3'927 14.88 105.61 806 19.30 10'431 21.23 34.38 57.03 54 55.11 3'400 36.13 29.44 3'729 23.63 13 10.20 8.88 21.94 38.51 654 30.04 17.76 19.26 23.72 655 27.13 1'178 65.06 21.06 1'130 26.70 22.28 19'928 14.36 73.02 95.32 752 11.14 300 21.62 660 17.94 97 1.83 4'724 19. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia Trinidad & Tobago Uruguay Venezuela Upper Middle Income A-82 .72 41.68 42.20 7'773 42.88 13.91 35.70 236 8.45 24.76 1'993 41.8 20.95 85.95 20.90 290 12.13 11'263 37.38 Cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 7'403 17.14 3'371 11.80 411 27.68 26 12.73 11 12.03 33.15 22.27 12.67 18.84 507 27.37 9.64 26.80 819 22.95 32.65 32.84 10'523 84.47 1.67 538 24. Projections Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 8'185 21.81 38.26 1.74 37 31.39 7.88 30'488 25.

96 25'397 48.54 94.74 64.4 58.15 3'695 56.31 43.75 82.24 90.13 70.01 2'211 50.32 10'179 61.89 78.57 83.83 51.07 49. China Malta Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Norway Portugal Qatar Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan.25 38.11 66'613 55.86 68.3 641'281.98 78.86 65.05 62.61 73.57 70.98 63.56 38.08 37.55 59. Source: ITU.01 39.68 86.68 84.57 27.09 87.06 59.26 48.23 3'544 68.33 19.45 93.23 Cellular Total (000s) 2005 58 14'057 6'811 259 496 103 8'547 196 12'813 549 5'007 4'846 41'135 119 63'651 10'756 7'012 273 3'091 6'832 54'607 87'221 35'646 1'698 540 389 316 12'425 93 2'631 3'913 9'054 398 3'632 1'869 37'491 8'717 6'206 26'161 3'045 52'923 152'946 688'530 1'533'535 65'682 289'063 676'438 485'239 17'109 subscribers per 100 inhabitants 2002 48.24 54.92 37.13 24.47 3.55 32. China Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea (Rep.38 19.66 72.43 51.09 71.03 58.56 83.81 39.07 4.61 84.26 96.41 1'670 44.36 82.41 147 40.66 505 20.20 13'816 58.08 69.53 69.35 48.03 98.55 33'841 56.66 100.13 43.37 35.81 66.42 212 52.91 74.75 84.73 11.79 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Antigua & Barbuda Australia Austria Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belgium Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus Denmark Finland France French Polynesia Germany Greece Hong Kong.62 4'417 42.94 62.34 52.36 1'214 31.51 6'362 73.21 22.58 70.66 63.49 27'213 50. China United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States High Income World Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Note: For data comparability and coverage.31 25.32 95.42 51.65 67.24 67.38 19.16 59'433 65.40 21.29 43.80 75.35 30.05 75.72 46.53 1'899 46.94 32.80 79.56 45.17 60.3 315'925.98 92.99 17.90 2.97 114.28 77.15 69.03 71.2 17.40 5'706 74.59 29.89 55.58 61.62 65. A-83 .7 29'326.86 53.30 106 25.08 10'960 53.61 3'978 48.44 73.81 204 28.87 63.87 2005 72.58 91.6 350'167.01 92.32 76.85 27'126 48.71 62.04 395 79.42 88.69 19'398 63.24 1'349'659.62 91.90 106.86 50.32 97.44 46.94 34'409 59.78 47.46 83.90 12.84 68.88 39.62 39.28 61.89 80.13 40.51 78.53 82.44 54.93 106.00 182 65.88 571'797.81 39.68 93. Projections Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants Total (000s) 2005 2002 2005 38 48.82 81.63 182 26.88 48.2 12'959.69 44.85 76.70 36.44 83.54 58.43 175 39.22 1'473 50.77 34.20. see the technical notes.47 53.77 61.47 35.07 48.72 58.71 51.11 51.34 82.57 4'860 49.25 90.58 3'299 46.65 54 23.69 51 21.40 7.99 41.95 51.01 118.34 40.13 2'551 52.74 78.11 64.39 19.32 86.93 18.25 60. Figures in italics are estimates or refer to years other than those specified.73 91.42 77.52 43.17 84.92 581 68.79 3'406 73.39 148 49.24 185'084 64.60 76.65 5'063 49.) Kuwait Luxembourg Macao.

.

Group figures are shown in bold in the tables. telephone set. 4. The Automatic per cent is calculated by dividing the number of main lines connected to automatic exchanges by the total number of main lines. while for main lines per 100 inhabitants the weighted average is shown. lines that are not used for professional purposes or as public telephone stations) divided by the total number of main lines. IMF) to the figure reported in national currency. 3. Waiting list The table shows the total number of applications for a connection to a main telephone line that have had to be held over owing to a lack of technical availability. In cases of significant missing data.e. Note that for most countries. The Digital per cent is calculated by dividing the number of main lines connected to digital exchanges by the total number of main lines. the total number of main telephone lines for each grouping is shown. Group figures are either totals or weighted averages depending on the indicator. The data for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are generally from the IMF. Satisfied demand is obtained by dividing the number of main lines by the total demand for main telephone lines (sum of the unmet applications and operating main telephone lines). Total telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants is calculated by dividing the total telephone subscribers by the population and multiplying by 100. Group growth rates generally refer to countries for which data is available for both years. . Total demand is obtained by adding main lines in operation and the waiting list. For the few countries where neither the IMF nor World Bank rates are available. Faults per A-85 The result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. It should be noted that the waiting list refers to applications received. The percentage of Residential lines refers to the number of main lines serving households (i. for main telephone lines. group totals are not shown. Local telephone network Capacity used is obtained by dividing the number of main lines in service by the total number of main lines that could be connected to local public switching exchanges. a World Bank conversion rate is used. main lines also include public payphones..g. the land area does not include any overseas dependencies but does include inland waters. ISDN). Many countries also include ISDN channels in main lines (see 9. Main telephone lines This table shows the number of Main telephone lines and Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants for the years indicated and corresponding annual growth rates. 1.TECHNICAL NOTES General methodology The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is computed by the formula: [(Pv / P0) (1/n)]–1 where Pv = Present value P0 = Beginning value n = Number of periods 2. Total telephone subscribers refer to the sum of main telephone lines and cellular mobile subscribers (see below for definitions). Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants is calculated by dividing the number of main lines by the population and multiplying by 100. Basic indicators The data for Population are mid-year estimates from national statistical offices or the United Nations (UN). a United Nations end-of-period rate was used. facsimile machine) to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and which have a dedicated port on a telephone exchange. United States dollar figures are reached by applying the average annual exchange rate (from the International Monetary Fund. Waiting time shows the approximate number of years applicants must wait for a telephone line. it does not include figures for those who desire a telephone line but have not submitted an application. Main telephone lines refer to telephone lines connecting a customer’s equipment (e. Population Density is based on land area data from the UN. They are current price data in national currency converted to United States dollars by the method identified above. Subscriber lines is calculated by subtracting the number of ISDN channels from main telephone lines and adding ISDN subscribers. For countries where the IMF rate is unavailable or where the exchange rate typically applied to foreign exchange transactions differs markedly from the official IMF rate. Effective teledensity is the higher value of either main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants or cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants. It is calculated by dividing the number of applicants on the waiting list by the average number of main lines added per year over the past three years. For example.

Per 1’000 inhabitants is obtained by dividing the number of public payphones by the population and multiplying by 1’000. the price of a call to the same mobile network is used. Telephone tariffs The table shows the costs associated with local residential and business telephone service. Percentage of households with a telephone is based on surveys carried out by national statistical offices. so an annual estimate is made by multiplying by 12. This is the amount the subscriber must pay for a 3-minute call and not the average price for each 3-minutes. Prepaid subscribers refers to the total number of mobile cellular subscribers using prepaid cards. 8. Per minute local call refers to the price of a one-minute peak and off-peak rate local call from a mobile cellular telephone. The definition of a fault varies among countries: some operators define faults as including malfunctioning customer equipment while others include only technical faults. Per 100 households is obtained by dividing the number of residential main lines by the number of households and multiplying by 100. DAMPS. % digital is the number of mobile cellular subscribers who use a digital cellular service (e. When subscription charges are reported annually or bi-monthly. Mobile cellular subscribers Cellular mobile telephone subscribers refer to users of portable telephones subscribing to an automatic public mobile telephone service using cellular technology that provides access to the PSTN. When there are different rates. Payphones refers to the total number of all types of public telephones including coin— and card—operated ones. This indicator is not always comparable since some countries include a number of free local calls in the subscription. The number of basic rate subscribers is multiplied by two and the number of primary rate subscribers is multiplied by 23 or 30 depending on the standard implemented. Note that it generally includes main telephone lines and where countries report a combined figure. Population coverage measures the percentage of inhabitants that are within range of a mobile cellular signal whether or not they are subscribers. B-channels per 1’000 inhabitants is the number of B-channel equivalents divided by the population and multiplied by 1’000. would also include households with a mobile subscription. It includes both basic rate and primary rate interface subscribers. The Subscription as a % of GDP per capita shows cost of an annual residential telephone subscription as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product per capita.g.. Monthly subscription refers to the recurring fixed charge for subscribing to the PSTN. International telephone traffic Outgoing telephone traffic refers to total telephone traffic measured in minutes that originated in the specified country with a destination outside the country. A-86 7. Prepaid cellular tariffs Connection charge refers to the initial. As % of main lines is obtained by dividing the number of public telephones by the number of main lines. CDMA. Connection refers to connection charges for basic telephone service. GSM. B-channels as % of main lines is the number of B-channel equivalents divided by the number of main telephone lines. ISDN and ADSL ISDN subscribers refers to the number of subscribers to Integrated Services Digital Networks. one-time charge for a new subscription. 5. 6. Local call refers to the cost of a 3-minute call within the same exchange area using the subscriber’s equipment (i. 9. It is calculated by the total number of reported faults for the year divided by the number of telephone main lines and multiplied by 100. Cost of local SMS is the price of sending a national Short Message Service (SMS) message from a mobile handset. . PCS. Teleaccessibility Total residential main lines refer to the number of main lines used by households. Per 100 inhabitants is obtained by dividing the number of cellular subscribers by the population and multiplying by 100. 10.e. not from a public telephone). Some countries include public phones installed in private places. Any taxes involved in these three charges are included to improve comparability. they are converted to their corresponding monthly amount. This is calculated by dividing the number of inhabitants within range of a mobile cellular signal by the total population. No distinction is made between operational and non-operational payphones. As % of bothway refers to outgoing traffic divided by total traffic (incoming and outgoing). Some countries report this on a monthly basis.100 main lines per year refer to the number of reported faults per 100 main telephone lines for the year indicated. PHS) by the total number of cellular subscribers. B-channel equivalents converts the number of ISDN subscriber lines into their equivalent voice channels. As a % of total telephone subscribers is obtained by dividing the number of cellular subscribers by the total number of telephone subscribers (sum of the main telephone lines and the cellular subscribers.

They correspond to the Standard Industrial Trade Classification (SITC. This is similar to GFCF except that it does not include changes in inventories which tend to comprise a small proportion of GFCF. For some countries where GFCF is not available. Third. Per inhabitant shows current revenues divided by the number of inhabitants in the country. Information technology Internet hosts refer to the number of computers directly connected to the worldwide Internet network. Mobile subscribers per employee is calculated by dividing total mobile cellular subscribers by the number of mobile staff. 14. or operators may be part of a parent company that only provides consolidated accounts. radio paging or data services in some developing nations if these services are not provided by the main fixed-link operator. no breakdown of telecommunication staff is available. the United States dollar figure is arrived at by the method described above.81 Radiotelephony / telegraphy receivers and 764. there are definition and accounting differences among countries.1 Line telephony / telegraphy. As a % of revenue is obtained by dividing annual investment by telecommunication revenues. Gross Domestic Investment is used. Telecommunication investment Investment refers to the annual expenditure associated with acquiring ownership of property and plant used for telecommunication services and includes land and buildings. Equipment trade This table shows telecommunication equipment imports and exports. In some cases where posts and telecommunication organisations are combined. % female refers to the number of full time telecommunication staff that are female divided by the total number of employees. Per employee is obtained by dividing revenues by employees.91 Parts and accessories. Second. Per main line is obtained by dividing investment by main lines. 12. Data may not be strictly comparable due to a number of factors. Subscribers per employee is computed by dividing total telephone subscribers by the number of employees. As a % of GFCF shows telecommunications investment divided by Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF). Balance shows exports minus imports for the latest year available. 15. The data come from the United Nations in United States dollar values. Per telephone subscriber is obtained by dividing revenues by total telephone subscribers (fixed plus mobile).Minutes per inhabitant is obtained by dividing outgoing international minutes by the number of inhabitants in the country. Note that Internet host computers are identified by a two-digit country code or a three-digit code generally A-87 . United States dollar values are obtained by the method described earlier. This is not unequivocally known and may be impossible to determine since there may be no legal requirement for all operators to provide financial information. Fourth. Telecommunication staff Telecommunication staff refers to the total number of staff (part-time staff converted to full-time equivalents) employed by telecommunication enterprises providing public telecommunication services. International telephone circuits refers to the number of links (voice channel equivalents) with other countries for establishing telephone communications. Revision 2 or latest) categories 764. As a % of GDP shows telecommunication revenues divided by national Gross Domestic Product. Total telecommunication revenue consists of all telecommunication revenues earned during the financial year under review. This refers to mobile operators building infrastructure and not staff employed by resellers. The data does not always include revenues from cellular mobile telephone. Mobile staff refers to the total number of staff employed by mobile cellular network operators. Minutes per subscriber is obtained by dividing outgoing international minutes by the number of main lines. 11. the operators may have subsidiaries with financial activities unrelated to telecommunication services that may be included. Telecommunication revenue This table shows the revenues (turnover) received from providing telecommunication services in each country. Per inhabitant is obtained by dividing the annual investment by the population. Note that the figure would generally not include sub-contract staff. Total telecom investment shows total current investments for the year indicated. it is assumed that the data relate to revenues of all operators providing service in the country. For some countries. 764. 764. % mobile revenue is the share of mobile communication revenue. Caution should be used in interpreting this figure as some countries may subcontract a proportion of work. no breakdown between postal and telecommunication staff is available and the figure may thus be unrealistically low. 13. in the case of countries where posts and telecommunications are combined. in which case the number of main lines per employee would be overstated.3 Transmission apparatus. First. a perfect allocation of revenues is not always possible.

reflecting the nature of the organization using the Internet computer. SMATV serving households in different buildings is counted as cable TV. Home satellite antennas shows the number of households with access to a multi-channel television service delivered by satellite. both in absolute numbers and in terms of PCs per 100 inhabitants. Data are generally those of the largest Internet Service Provider (ISP) and incumbent telephone company as they list the prices. As % of cable TV subscribers is calculated by dividing the number of cable modem Internet subscribers by the total cable TV subscribers and multiplying by 100. 16. Bits per inhabitant is calculated by dividing the international Internet bandwidth by the population. Although there exist various definitions of broadband. As % of total A-88 subscribers is calculated by dividing the total number of broadband subscribers by the total number of Internet subscribers. some countries also report the number of households cabled to community antenna systems re-broadcasting free-toair channels because of poor reception. Radio population coverage refers to the percentage of the population that could receive terrestrial-based radio programming transmissions from where they live. data and video. Telephone charge refers to the amount payable to the telephone company for local telephone charges while logged on. ISP charge refers to the Internet monthly subscription plus extra charges once free hours have been used up. In addition. The reported figure for Internet users—which may refer to only users above a certain age—is divided by the total population to obtain users per 100 inhabitants. Data on Internet host computers are from Internet Software Consortium and RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens). 19. However surveys differ across countries in the age and frequency of use they cover. Data for Internet bandwidth come from ITU’s annual questionnaire supplemented with data from TeleGeography. Internet tariff The table shows the costs associated with 20 hours dial-up use per month. In some cases. As % of GNI per capita shows cost of 20 hours use per month as a percentage of Gross National Income. Internet Internet subscribers refers to the number of dial-up. Internet Users is based on nationally reported data. Since households may not register. some countries also report subscribers using wireless technology. these are used instead. (See the discussion under television households regarding licenses that would also be applicable to radio). cable modem and other broadband subscribers. 18. Cable modem Internet subscribers refer to Internet subscribers via a cable TV network. As % of TV households is calculated by dividing the number of cable TV subscribers by the number of TV households. surveys have been carried out that give a more precise figure for the number of Internet users. Television households is the number of households that have television receivers. Coverage refers to the percentage of the population that can receive a terrestrial broadcast signal. If broadband prices are cheaper. In addition.e. The figures for PCs come from the annual questionnaire supplemented by other sources. Multichannel TV Cable TV subscribers are those who subscribe to a multi-channel television service delivered by a fixed-link connection. Countries that do not have surveys generally base their estimates on derivations from reported Internet Service Provider subscriber counts. Note that for some countries. As % of total households is calculated by dividing the number of radio households by total households. all other hosts for which there are no country code identification are assigned to the United States. it may be defined as sufficient bandwidth to permit combined provision of voice. PCs shows the estimated number of Personal Computers (PCs). International bandwidth refers to the amount of international Internet bandwidth measured in Mega Bits Per Second (Mbps). the number of licenses may understate the true number especially if there is widespread avoidance of the licensing system. usually coaxial or fibre optic cable. Broadband subscribers refer to the sum of DSL. This includes usage charges but does not include the telephone line rental. This figure includes both Direct-to-the-home (DTH) service and Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) which serves several households in the same building. Speed should be greater than 128 kbps in at least one direction. calculated by multiplying the number of subscribers by a multiplier. 17. However. the number of licenses (i. The number of hosts is assigned to economies based on the country code although this does not necessarily indicate that the host is actually physically located in the economy. leased line and broadband Internet subscribers. Broadcasting Radio households represent the number of households that have a radio receiver. . system where television sets must be registered) is used as a proxy for television households. Therefore the number of Internet hosts shown for each country can only be considered an approximation. Total Internet price refers to the sum of telephone usage charges and ISP charges.

7 6.1 31..6 33..2 .0 16.3 11.9 ..3 38.0 21. 25. 1.2 4..4 2.0 8.2 0.)..5 0.2 86.8 Mobile cellular subscribers Total (000s) 0.3 13. 0.1 35. The 2002 growth rate is halved each year to arrive at the forecast for 2005.9 .3 6.0 6.7 .6 25.0 160.5 750.2 43..0 34.0 87.3 1.0 58..9 323.2 76.0 12.7 .4 12.4 58.0 2. Internet users.5 49.0 18.3 .. 31.9 38. 8..2 34.0 0.. Helena St. 1.8 21..7 19. In some cases values have been adjusted (e.5 0.7 3. 2002 Population Main telephone lines Total (000s) 0..0 23’294.0 .. 1. 15.0 .2 39.5 .1 22.9 72.0 27...3 22..0 0. 79. 319.9 . cellular subscribers.7 32.0 20..0 45. 0. 30. 8.4 9.0 23.0 47.... The estimated number of lines in the year 2005 is a projection based on historical growth rates over the last three years..9 .1 2.0 6.4 17.3 1.7 78.7 56.4 0.6 0.0 33.0 14.0 3.0 110.8 9.7 7. 40.7 6.0 98.0 18.5 70.3 3.7 6..0 82..0 405.0 20.0 15..5 .0 per 100 inhabitants 22.0 220.0 24’242.2 52. ranked in ascending order of population.7 .1 10..0 35. .2 1.6 138.8 5.. Montserrat St. 1.5 3’858.0 743....6 16..6 14.2 30.0 25..4 34.. Cook Islands British Virgin Islands San Marino Gibraltar Monaco Liechtenstein Cayman Islands Faroe Islands Northern Marianas American Samoa Bermuda Andorra Kiribati Virgin Islands (US) Aruba Micronesia Mayotte Guam French Guiana Neth.6 24.0 30.0 464.2 16.5 50.0 ..5 69. 10.0 . additional suppliers to enter market.6 10..2 47.7 41..1 675.0 7.....2 .5 26.2 53..0 11.8 0.9 . 2002 growth rate exceptionally high.6 0.0 20.5 33.9 148.0 30.0 59.0 89.0 81.8 2..0 2. 0.8 ..5 100.4 5.5 489.5 10’162. 77...0 0.6 1...0 3’237.9 1..7 65.3 27.0 4.1 35.5 35.1 (000s) Ascension Niue Tokelau Falkland (Malvinas) Is.0 per 100 inhabitants 49.2 104.0 4. 12.4 37.8 15. 20.7 50.0 per 100 inhabitants 38.0 2.0 .7 20. 30.0 61.0 177.7 2.5 8.5 41.. Source: ITU World Telecommunication Indicators database. 0.. show the current figures for these items and the estimated figure for the year 2005.6 4.0 150.0 13.6 110.2 43.8 1. total and per 100 inhabitants.5 53.1 10. total telephone subscribers and Internet users per 100 inhabitants for economies not shown in the main tables.0 28..0 50.0 210.6 5.4 .5 14. .0 6. etc.3 84.3 0. Antilles Martinique Guadeloupe Réunion Timor-Leste Liberia Puerto Rico Somalia Afghanistan Iraq 1.5 .0 32. main telephone lines.3 36.0 2.3 0.3 2.0 .2 .0 24.2 11.6 65..0 172.0 80.6 37.0 .9 0.0 1.4 62.g.6 1..8 1’329. 46.3 53.1 ..0 .6 59.1 Internet users Total (000s) 0...0 600.0 64.0 117.8 19.3 35.0 69.0 1.3 20.0 1’211.. Projections Main telephone lines.3 34.. Box 1: Other economies Population.0 51. 46. The estimated number of mobile cellular subscribers for the year 2005 is generally derived from the 2002 growth rate.1 63. 1. Pierre & Miquelon Tuvalu Anguilla Nauru Wallis and Futuna Turks & Caicos Is..0 300. 3.7 20.4 4.20.9 48. total and per 100 inhabitants.6 11.9 26..0 14. 50. 6.0 1.0 53.5 .1 .. 52. 2.8 37.6 18.1 0...0 22.6 6.1 0.. and cellular subscribers.0 23.9 5.0 Note: Figures in italics are estimates or refer to earlier years..3 89.2 .5 . A-89 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful