Survey Questionnaire Compilation & Analysis of Feedback Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Highways

Transcription

1 Survey Questionnaire Compilation & Analysis of Feedback Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Highways Part of thestudy Co-deployment of Fibre Optic Cables Survey to Gather Information about Status & Practices of Codeployment in Member Countries of Asian Highway & Trans- Asian Railway Networks. Co ordinated by UN ESCAP Secretariat

2 Countries Participated

3 Q 1 Does your Country have any Experience related to Co deployment/co habitation of FOCs along Highway/Railway Routes? Highway Railway Not Sure Notes (Please specify) Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Highway Highway, Railway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway Highway, Not Sure Highway, Railway

4 Q 2 FOCs were Laid Along Highway/Railway Routes and within RoW Parallel to Highway/Railway Located Outside RoW Allowed Crossing (Transverse Direction) Not sure Directly Buried & Taken Through Pipes Taken Through Concrete Conduits Other (Please Specify) Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey All Options Along Highway/Railway in RoW Through High density polyethylene (HPDE) Duct Only Rolled On Utility Power Lines Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Directly Buried Pipes Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Not All Over the Network Parallel to Highway/Railway without RoW Along Highway/Railway in RoW & Parallel to without RoW. Allowed Transverse Crossing. Directly Buried Pipes. Along Roads Outside Roadside, Puncture Method or Tunneling. Along Highway/Railway in RoW Along Highway/Railway in RoW & Running Parallel without RoW Along highway/railway in RoW & Directly Buried Pipes

5 Fibre Optic Infrastructure Laying Procedures

6 Q 3 Co deployment/co habitation Status Total Kms in Country along Highway/Railway Routes? Total Route Distance Kms in Country. Approx FOC Length Kms along RoW Not Known Other (Please Specify) Bangladesh Azerbaijan Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Total Route Distance in Kms in Country Kms. No Co deployments of along Owners Highways. OFC owned by Railway Co deployed. Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 3300 Kms Approx Route Distance in Kms along RoW 3300 Kms No Data Provided Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 1790 Kms No Data Provided Total Route distance in Kms in the Country KM Approx Kms of FOCs Laid along Highway (RoW & Roadside) Approx Route Distance in Kms along RoW 113 Kms No Data Provided Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 2700 Kms. Total Planned/Sanctioned/Approved 1500 Kms Route Distance (Kms) Bangladesh Fiber@Home Ltd. 41,238 Summit 39,761 Communications Ltd. Bangladesh Railway 2,421 BTCL 23,250 PGCB 5,549 Others (Mobile, PSTN, 7,789 ISP) Total 1,20,008

7 Q 4 Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Is there any Local or National Plan/Policy related to Co deployment/co habitation of FOCs along Highway or Railway Routes? If yes, please provide details No Guidelines for Infrastructure sharing Exist for NTTN Operators to Share Duct/Trench. Land Management Policy of Roads & Highways Deptt Provides for Use of Land. National Broadband Master Plan Implementation Project & Telecommunication Broadband Policy No National Coverage Plan covering 34,000 KM is Underway No No Yes NBN (National Broadband Network) Entity Exists Support Open Access (Network Neutrality) Efficient Utilization of National Infrastructure National Broadband Strategy and Action plan ( )(UGSEP)

8 Q 5 Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey For Co deployment/co habitation of FOCs with Highway/Railway Agency which type of other entity/ entities were involved. Adequate Capacity & Capability for Works/Projects? Highway/ Railway Agency + Capacity one two more Private OR Public Sector two more Public AND Private Sector (Mixed) Not sure. If Other(s), Details More than Two Public Sector Units Two Public Sector Entities 5(five) NTTN Licensed Operators Two Private Sector Fiber@Home Ltd & Summit Communications & More than Two Public Sector Units BTCL, BR & Power Grid Company of Bangladesh Ltd. Ltd More than two Private sector & Public sector entities Two Mixed entities Two Mixed entities More than two Private sector entities One Private Sector Entity More than Two Public Sector Entities EGAT; PEA & MEA Two Private Sector Entities

9 Q 6 Any Local/National Law/Ordinance/Act/Gazette/Legal coverage on FOC Co deployment. If yes, please provide details Azerbaijan No Bangladesh Yes, Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Act,2001 Right to Install Telecom Apparatus Above or Over Land. RoW to Operators on Land owned Government or Authority. Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey No No Yes, Law of External Roads No Yes No Yes, Royal Ordinance & Government Gazette (RoW) No

10 Q 7 Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Initial Installation Cost Shared among Entities? If Yes, How Shared? Lease of RoW & Re pairs to Highway/Railway Included. On Kms of Length basis for Highway/Railway Routes On Kms of Length basis for FOCs Lumpsum Amount per Contract Lumpsum amount per Area/Subregion/Region of Entity Depending on Scope of Work. Not Shared. Not Sure On a Km of Length basis for FOCs, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Lumpsum Amount per Area/ Region, Varies Depending on Scope of Work On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared amongst Entities Cost borne by the Royal Government On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Varies Depending on Scope of Work Not Shared amongst Entities; Borne by the Ministry of Information Technology Not Sure Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Not Shared amongst Entities Not Shared amongst Entities; Individual Ministry/Entity bears Not Shared amongst Entities; Each Entity gets Individual Permit; Charge for OFC usage is based on core KM Not Shared amongst Entities; Institution Receives Annual Rent for Area, where FOC is deployed

11

12 Q 8 Initial Installation Cost Shared among Entities? If Yes, How Shared? Lease of RoW & Re pairs to Highway/Railway Included. On Kms of Length basis for Highway/Railway Routes On Kms of Length basis for FOCs Lumpsum Amount per Contract Lumpsum amount per Area/Subregion/Region of Entity Depending on Scope of Work. Not Shared. Not Sure Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Varies Depending on Scope of Work On a Km of Length basis for the Highway Routes, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared. Not Shared amongst Entities On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Varies Depending on Scope of Work Not Shared amongst Entities Not Sure On a Km of Length basis for FOCs, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared amongst Entities Not Shared amongst Entities Not Shared amongst Entities Not Shared amongst Entities

13

14 Q 9 Benefits of Co deployment/co habitation of FOCs along Highway Routes Improved Efficiency Reduced Project Cost, Faster Deployment Dig Once Use Many Times Economically Beneficial Reduced Cost of Transport & ICT Deployment Additional Revenue Earnings for Transport Financially Beneficial for Some Entities Financially Beneficial for All Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity Improved Traffic Management & Intelligent Transport Systems Improved Road Safety Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. Other(s), Details Azerbaijan Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for All, Indirect Benefits. Bangladesh Mongolia Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. No Co deployments along Highways but Co habitation Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for All, Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation Improved Efficiency, Additional Revenue Earnings, Improved Road Safety, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services Economically Beneficial Improved Traffic Management & ITS

15 Q 9 (Contd) Benefits of Co deployment/co habitation of FOCs along Highway Routes Improved Efficiency Reduced Project Cost, Faster Deployment Dig Once Use Many Times Economically Beneficial Reduced Cost of Transport & ICT Deployment Additional Revenue Earnings for Transport Financially Beneficial for Some Entities Financially Beneficial for All Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity Improved Traffic Management & Intelligent Transport Systems Improved Road Safety Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. Other(s), Details Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for Some Entities, Improved Traffic Management & ITS, Improved Road Safety All FOC Infrastructure Laid during Works or Repairs of Highways in the RoW for Advantages having Social Importance. Improved Efficiency, Improved Traffic Management, Improved Road Safety Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. Financially Beneficial to All Stakeholders as Costs paid by the Royal Government. Turkey Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Additional Revenue Earnings, Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation, Financially Beneficial for All, Improved Traffic Management, Improved Road Safety

16

17 What are the challenges & constraints of co deployment/ co habitation of fibre optic cables along highway/ railway routes Q 10 coordination among agencies/ entities lack of legal coverage planning is not easy benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness financial costs are more than the visible benefits Main Infrastructure Entities not interested/convinced damage to fibre optic cables during construction safety hazard security hazard other(s), please provide suggestions to meet the challenges and overcome the constraints Azerbaijan coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness, main Infrastructure entities not interested/convinced, damage to fibre optic cables during construction Bangladesh coordination among agencies/ entities, planning is not easy, damage to fibre optic cables during construction Suggestions to overcome the constrains: Proper compensation for fibre damage/ relocation by concerned authorities to the affected NTTN operators One stop cell needs to be established for facilitating the permission process and interagencies coordination coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage

18 coordination among agencies/ entities, planning is not easy, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness, safety hazard lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy Mongolia lack of legal coverage, damage to fibre optic cables during construction Russia coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy, benefits are not clear, financial costs are more, Main Infrastructure Entities not interested/convinced Sri Lanka coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage Thailand coordination among agencies/ entities, planning is not easy Turkey coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage

19

20 In terms of co deployment/ co habitation of fibre optic cables along highway/ railway routes what is your overall experience Q 11 extremely favourable very much favourable favourable neutral not favourable If others, please provide detail Azerbaijan Bangladesh Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Neutral Favourable It is easier to deploy and maintain fibre along the highways. Since the highways are built in highlands, NTTN operators face less impact during flood. OFC are also secured along the highways. Neutral Favourable Very much favourable Neutral Neutral Extremely favourable

21 Thailand Turkey Neutral No experience in laying fibres optics along the highways or railways expect from rolling fibres optics along utility power lines. Experienced several international cross border interconnections regarding International Private Leased Circuit service(iplc) Very much favourable

22 Q 12 Does your country have any experience related to fibre optic cables installed/ deployed along highway or railway route(s) that cross(es) the national border and connects to the neighbouring country/ countries? The fibre optic cables were laid across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries at border crossing points: one two more within the country but at least in one case extends up to the border only within the country and does not reach the border not sure any note including the systems required/provided at the border interchange point (please specify) Azerbaijan across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries, within the country extending borders Bangladesh across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries Cross border installments: International Terrestrial Cable (ITC) operators are connected with TATA and Bharti Airtel at Benapole/Petrapole border through a common handhole point in the no man s land BTCL is connected with BSNL at Akhaura/Agartala border through a common handhole SEA ME WE 4 is connected with the consortium through the landing port at Cox,s Bazar. SEA ME WE 5 is connected with the consortium through the landing port at Kuakata.

23 Mongolia Russia Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey not sure only within the country across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries not sure only within the country across the border of the neighbouring countries, only within the country only within the country