Survey Questionnaire Compilation & Analysis of Feedback

Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Highways

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 Co-

deployment in Member Countries of Asian Highway & Trans-

Asian Railway Networks.

Co‐ordinated by UN‐ESCAP Secretariat

Highway Feedback

Countries Participated

Highway Feedback

Q 1Does 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 HighwayBangladesh Highway, RailwayBhutan HighwayChina HighwayIran HighwayMongolia HighwayRussia HighwaySri Lanka HighwayThailand Highway, Not SureTurkey Highway, Railway

Highway Feedback

Q 2FOCs 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 All Options

Bangladesh Along Highway/Railway in RoW Through High‐density polyethylene (HPDE) Duct Only

Bhutan Rolled On Utility Power Lines

China Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Directly Buried Pipes

Iran Along Highway/Railway in RoW. Not All Over the Network

Mongolia Parallel to Highway/Railway without RoW

Russia Along Highway/Railway in RoW & Parallel to without RoW. Allowed Transverse Crossing. Directly Buried Pipes. Along Roads Outside Roadside, Puncture Method or Tunneling.

Sri Lanka Along Highway/Railway in RoW

Thailand Along Highway/Railway in RoW & Running Parallel without RoW

Turkey Along highway/railway  in RoW & Directly Buried Pipes

Highway Feedback

Fibre Optic Infrastructure Laying ProceduresFibre Optic Infrastructure Laying Procedures

Highway Feedback

Q 3Co‐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 Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 120008 Kms. No Co‐deployments of along Highways. OFC owned by Railway Co‐deployed.

Bhutan Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 3300 KmsApprox Route Distance in Kms along RoW 3300 Kms

China No Data Provided

Azerbaijan Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 1790 Kms

Iran No Data Provided

Mongolia Total Route distance in Kms in the Country 15231 KM

Russia Approx 24800 Kms of FOCs Laid along Highway (RoW & Roadside)

Sri Lanka Approx Route Distance in Kms along RoW 113 Kms

Thailand No Data Provided

Turkey Total Route Distance in Kms in Country 2700 Kms. Total Planned/Sanctioned/Approved 1500 Kms

Owners Bangladesh

Route Distance (Kms)

Fiber@Home Ltd. 41,238Summit Communications Ltd.

39,761

Bangladesh Railway 2,421BTCL 23,250PGCB 5,549Others (Mobile, PSTN, ISP)

7,789

Total 1,20,008

Highway Feedback

Q 4Is 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

Azerbaijan No

Bangladesh Guidelines for Infrastructure sharing Exist for NTTN Operators to Share Duct/Trench.Land Management Policy of Roads & Highways Deptt Provides for Use of Land.

Bhutan National Broadband Master Plan Implementation Project & Bhutan Telecommunication Broadband Policy

China No

Iran National Coverage Plan covering 34,000 KM is Underway 

Mongolia No

Russia No

Sri Lanka Yes

Thailand NBN (National Broadband Network) Entity Exists ‐ Support Open Access (Network Neutrality) Efficient Utilization of National Infrastructure 

Turkey National Broadband Strategy and Action plan (2017‐2020)(UGSEP)

Highway Feedback

Q 5For 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

Azerbaijan More than Two Public Sector Units

Bhutan Two Public Sector Entities

Bangladesh 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 

China More than two Private‐sector & Public‐sector entities

Iran Two Mixed entities

Mongolia Two Mixed entities

Russia More than two Private‐sector entities

Sri Lanka One Private Sector Entity

Thailand More than Two Public Sector Entities — EGAT; PEA & MEA 

Turkey Two Private Sector Entities

Highway Feedback

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. 

Bhutan NoChina NoIran Yes, Law of External RoadsMongolia NoRussia YesSri Lanka NoThailand Yes, Royal Ordinance & Government Gazette (RoW)

Turkey No

Highway Feedback

Q 7Initial 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 On a Km of Length basis for FOCs, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Lumpsum Amount per Area/ Region, Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Bangladesh On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared amongst Entities

Bhutan Cost borne by the Royal Government

China On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Iran Not Shared amongst Entities; Borne by the Ministry of Information Technology

Mongolia Not Sure

Russia Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Not Shared amongst Entities

Sri Lanka Not Shared amongst Entities;  Individual Ministry/Entity bears

Thailand Not Shared amongst Entities;  Each Entity gets Individual Permit; Charge for OFC usage is based on core KM

Turkey Not Shared amongst Entities; Institution Receives Annual Rent for Area, where FOC is deployed

Highway Feedback

Highway Feedback

Q 8Initial 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 On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Bangladesh On a Km of Length basis for the Highway Routes, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared.

Bhutan Not Shared amongst Entities

China On a Km of Length basis for Highway Routes, On a Km of Length basis for FOC, Varies Depending on Scope of Work

Iran Not Shared amongst Entities

Mongolia Not Sure

Russia On a Km of Length basis for FOCs, Lumpsum Amount per Contract, Varies Depending on Scope of Work, Not Shared amongst Entities

Sri Lanka Not Shared amongst Entities

Thailand Not Shared amongst Entities

Turkey Not Shared amongst Entities

Highway Feedback

Highway Feedback

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 □ AdditionalRevenue Earnings for Transport □ Financially Beneficial for Some Entities □ FinanciallyBeneficial for All □ Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation □Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity □ Improved TrafficManagement & Intelligent Transport Systems □ Improved Road Safety □ MinimumDisruption of Transport Services. □ Other(s), Details

Azerbaijan Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for All, Indirect Benefits.

Bangladesh Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services. No Co‐deployments along Highways but Co‐habitation 

Bhutan Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for All, Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation

China Improved Efficiency, Additional Revenue Earnings, Improved Road Safety, Minimum Disruption of Transport Services

Iran Economically Beneficial

Mongolia Improved Traffic Management & ITS

Highway Feedback

Russia Improved Efficiency, Economically Beneficial, Financially Beneficial for Some Entities, Improved Traffic Management & ITS, Improved Road SafetyAll FOC Infrastructure Laid during Works or Repairs of Highways in the RoW for Advantages having Social Importance.

Sri Lanka Improved Efficiency, Improved Traffic Management, Improved Road Safety Thailand 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

Highway Feedback

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 □ AdditionalRevenue Earnings for Transport □ Financially Beneficial for Some Entities □ FinanciallyBeneficial for All □ Enhanced Sustainable Development & Employment Generation □Indirect Benefits through ICT Applications & Connectivity □ Improved TrafficManagement & Intelligent Transport Systems □ Improved Road Safety □ MinimumDisruption of Transport Services. □ Other(s), Details

Highway Feedback

Q 10

What are the challenges & constraints of co‐deployment/ co‐habitation of fibre‐optic cables along highway/ railway routes

□ 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 inter‐agencies coordination

Bhutan coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage

Highway Feedback

China coordination among agencies/ entities, planning is not easy, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness, safety hazard

Iran 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

Highway Feedback

Highway Feedback

Q 11

In terms of co‐deployment/ co‐habitation of fibre‐optic cables along highway/ railway routes‐ what is your overall experience

□ extremely favourable□ very much favourable□ favourable□ neutral□ not favourable

If others, please provide detail

Azerbaijan Neutral

Bangladesh 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.

Bhutan NeutralChina FavourableIran Very much favourableMongolia NeutralRussia NeutralSri Lanka Extremely favourable

Highway Feedback

Highway Feedback

Thailand 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)

Turkey Very much favourable

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.

Highway Feedback

Highway Feedback

Bhutan not sure

China only within the country

Iran across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries

Mongolia across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries

Russia not sure

Sri Lanka only within the country

Thailand across the border of the neighbouring countries, only within the country

Turkey only within the country