along transport infrastructure for sdgs › sites › default › files › co... · railtel...
TRANSCRIPT
Co-Deployment of Fibre Optic Cables
along Transport Infrastructure for SDGs
Including Cross Border
December 2018
Final Report
Page 2 of 116
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. The opinions, figures and estimates set
forth in this publication are the responsibility of the authors and should not necessarily be
considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United
Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of firm names and
commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations.
This publication is issued without formal editing.
Final Report
Page 3 of 116
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared by Mr. Arun Saksena, international consultant appointed by
ESCAP, working on behalf of the Asian Institute of Transport Development (AITD), New
Delhi. The overall in-charge official for the study was Mr. Ishtiaque Ahmed, Economic Affairs
Officer, Transport Infrastructure Section, Transport Division of ESCAP.
Valuable advices were extended by Mr. Weimin Ren, Director Transport Division of ESCAP.
Additionally, Mr. Matthew Perkins, Economic Affairs Officer, and Ms. Atsuko Okuda, Chief,
Information and Communications Technology and Development Section,
Ms. Tiziana Bonapace, Director, Information and Communications Technology and Disaster
Risk Reduction Division of ESCAP provided constructive inputs to the study. The study team
received extremely useful guidance from Mr. Hongjoo Hahm, Deputy Executive Secretary
of ESCAP.
The study also received support of the Asian Institute of Transport Development (AITD),
New Delhi, especially the Chairman, Mr. K. L. Thapar and other transport experts including
Mr. D. P. Gupta and Mr. B. N. Puri.
Individual consultants from the following countries appointed by ESCAP provided valuable
inputs to the report.
• China (Prof. Xiaojing Wang)
• India (Mr. Arun Saksena)
• Republic of Korea (Dr. Mr. Hong Sang Yeon and Mr. Oh-Joung Kwon)
• Russian Federation (Mr. Vladimir Kryuchkov)
• Turkey (Mr. Murat Dursun Barut)
• Thailand (Mr. Tongkarn Kaewchalermtong)
Experts and delegates from member countries of the Asian Highway and Trans-Asian
Railway Networks have offered valuable comments on the development of this document.
The inputs were provided by both transport sector and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) sector professionals and experts.
Final Report
14 Highways
III. Fibre Optic Cables Co-deployment along Highways
1. National Co-deployment Status: Status of co-deployment in countries, which
were associated in the study is brought out below.
1. India: FOC laying started in 1980s and since then, the network has been expanded
by various entities in the private and public sectors, in most cases, separately. FOC
has been laid on/along the RoW of highways mostly in HDPE pipes directly buried in
ground at the depth of 1.0 to 1.6 meters. FOC is generally blown through (pulled in
some cases) HDPE ducts. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is done for Rail and
Road Crossings. Galvanised Iron Pipe (GI) is used along with HDPE pipes at
crossings and on bridges/culverts. Spread of highways has been increasing and they
are steadily becoming a preferred path for FOC networks for data and information
exchange for meeting the requirement of transportation as well. On highways,
systems are being deployed for providing safer and comfortable travel using traffic
control, asset management and travel information systems called Intelligent Transport
System (ITS). Granting permissions and levying charges for use of RoW has been
driven by requirements of commercial gains or public use with directions emerging
from Government and Regulatory Authority. Initiatives of the entities are brought out
briefly.
1. BharatNet or National Optical Fibre Network: NOFN will provide a minimum
of 100 MBps broadband connectivity to each of the 250,000 Gram Panchayats
(GP) in the country covering nearly 625,000 villages to transform to Digital India.
Last mile connectivity for 700,000 WiFi hotspots to cover 625,000 villages of
India, with 2 to 5 wifi hotspots per GP, have been planned by connecting high-
speed 4G base stations of TSPs. Commercially non-viable WiFi hotspots will be
subsidised by the Indian Government grant of ₹36,000 million to sustain
operations. Government has discounted the bulk BharatNet bandwidth rates to
the Commercial Telecom Operators by 75% to enable them to offer affordable,
competitive and commercially viable 4G broadband deals to the rural customers.
The ₹450,000 million Union Government share of funding will come from the
"Universal Services Obligation Fund" of Department of Telecommunications
(DoT) with additional funding by State Governments to connect all gram
panchayats. BharatNet is, world's largest, rural broadband connectivity program.
Bharat Broadband Network Limited (BBNL) has been set up to undertake the
work of NOFN implementation as well as own the entire network. RailTel
Corporation of India Ltd (RailTel) has been selected as one of the implementing
partner along with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL), to lay FOC network to connect the
panchayats with respective Block HQs. BSNL has its own long-haul fibre
network, covering more than 470 thousand kms spread over the country.
Final Report
15 Highways
STATUS OF BHARATNET (NOFN) AS ON 30.04.2018 (Table 1)
S.N. Description of Work Status
1 FOC Pipe laid 269,139 Kms (118,263 GPs)
2 Optical Fibre laid 272,137 Kms (115,356 GPs)
3 Tenders Finalized 3291 Blocks / 122,828 GPs
4 Work Started* 3281 Blocks / 121,855 GPs
5 Current Weekly performance of Optical Fibre laying
740 Kms
6 Current Weekly performance of FOC Pipe laying
526 Kms
7 Optical Fibre Cable Delivered on site
3,31,750 Kms
8 Service Ready GPs 1,09,099 GPs
* does not include the data of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Defence Network: Security and scalability of networks are important system
requirements of primary concern, where terrain and weather also play a key role
in deciding the technology. Survivability of networks and sustainability under
adverse war conditions needs to be ensured taking into account frequent
movement of equipment and short notice deployment of defence contingent.
• These are dependent on local networks and public sector operators such as
BSNL and RailTel for communication services. The static switched
communication network integrates the telecommunication infrastructure of the
hinterland with tactical communication networks requiring considerable
investments in optic fibre networks. Initiative of Network for Spectrum (NFS)
project, which is an exclusive secure, multi-service and multi-protocol optic
fibre-based nationwide communication network requires around 60,000 Kms of
FOC roll-out for connecting the stations of defence forces. National Long
Distance and Access Networks are planned for 45,000 kms and 15,000 kms
respectively.
3. RailTel FOC on Roads: Under the BharatNet initiative of BBNL, RailTel has
been entrusted with the task of connecting 36,000 gram panchayats across 120
districts in 11 states on Optical Fibre. Under the first phase of the project, 19,515
kms of FOC to 8,500 GPs has been connected. Later, Daman and Diu have been
added to the scope of work under this project. ICT projects in different states
have been assigned to RailTel, which includes laying 10,000 kms of Optical Fibre
network in six North-eastern States under the Universal Service Obligation (USO)
Final Report
16 Highways
Fund of the DoT and managing Haryana’s state wide area network project.
RailTel is associated in provision of 15,000 kms of FOC for the Army Static
Switched Communication Network (ASCON).
• RailTel is expanding its project to take high-speed internet (RailWire) to rural
homes in Tamil Nadu by linking its FOC network to existing cable TV
connections. RailTel has entered into revenue-sharing partnerships that allow
Multi-System Operators (MSOs) and Local Cable Operators (LCOs) to draw
from its FOC Points of Presence (PoP) established along railway lines to
provide last-mile connectivity to rural households. Brand RailWire currently
delivers Internet speeds ranging from 256 kbps to 10 MBps to about 2,500
subscribers in 16 of the 32 districts in the State. The business is growing at the
rate of about 3,000 new connections every month, officials said.
4. Private Sector Units - India: Intense competition in the telecom sector exists in
the Indian sub-continent and therefore a very limited data is available on the
telecom & networking infrastructure in public domain. Most of these entities are
reluctant to share their network deployment & plan infrastructure. Some details
as available are appended:
a. Airtel has acquired spectrum worth in auctions and its cumulative
investments in mobile business is US$ 30 billion. Airtel is executing a
comprehensive three-year network transformation initiative, “Project Leap”
necessitating capex investments of around US$ 9 billion. The Company will be
adding 80,000 new broadband enabled base stations under the initiative to its
current base of 120,000 broadband sites. After expanding its mobile broadband
coverage to all towns and over 250,000 villages, Airtel is committed to offer
mobile broadband to over 500,000 villages over the next three years. It will
cumulatively deploy more than 550,000 km of domestic & international fibre to
create a powerful, future-ready Internet backbone. (State of Broadband -
Broadband Commission Sept 2016 ITU Report)
b. Reliance Globalcom, a division of Reliance Communications, spearheads
the Global Telecom operations of India's largest Integrated Telecom Service
Provider. Reliance Globalcom brings together Enterprise Services, Capacity
Sales, Managed Services and a bouquet of Retail Products and Services
comprising of Global Voice, Internet Solutions and Value Added Services. It
serves over 2,100 Enterprises, 200 Carriers and 2.5 million retail customers in
163 countries across 6 continents. Reliance Globalcom owns the world's largest
private undersea cable system spanning 65,000 kms seamlessly integrated with
Reliance Communications' domestic optic fibre running over 190,000 kms.
www.relianceglobalcom.com
c. Vodafone’s Wireline Services are backed by a state-of-the-art network
infrastructure, comprising of over 140,000 km of strong fibre backbone, over
400 PoPs spread across business clusters across the country and a Network
Operations Centre for 24x7 performance management. Our Wireline Network is
Final Report
17 Highways
built on a Hierarchical Ring Architecture comprising of Super Cores and Regional
Cores that ensure maximum network redundancy.
https://www.vodafone.in/pages/index.aspx
d. Idea holds licenses for National Long Distance (NLD), ILD, ISP and IP-1
services. Idea currently carries around 98.4% of its captive NLD minutes,
consistently investing in FOC transmission network to tap the future potential of
wireless broadband and has laid and energised over 1,26,000 kms FOC. Idea
has over 8,160 PoPs (4G, 3G & 2G) in all Circles. The fibre backhaul network of
the company optimally serves our 2G/ 3G/4G NLD/ ILD/ ISP/Wireless Broadband
needs. Idea has also introduced worlds’ latest high capacity 100G DWDM
network technology to cater to rising data demand. (Idea Quarterly Report)
5. Status of FOC deployed along roads/highways in India is given in the Table 2.
Table 2
FOC Network Entities
Total Route Kms Provided
Future Plans Remarks
PSUs
BSNL + MTNL 473124 Along Roads and Highways
PGCIL 33282 35500 OPGW (16543 Kms) on Transmission Towers and along Highways (8496 Kms) 206 PoPs
GAIL 13000 5200 Along the Gas Pipe Lines (5681 Kms) and Highways (7346 Kms)
BBNL 272000 425000 About 700,000 kms to be laid for 250,000 GPs
Sub Total 791406 465700
Private Units FOC along Highways and Rail Crossings
Reliance Com 179318 65000 Kms of Sub Marine FOC
Reliance Jio 192487 Interaction with TRAI
Bharati AirTel 183795 366205 ITU Broadband Report
Tata Telecom 57807
VodaPhone 177187 400 PoPs
Idea 57732 8160 PoPs
Others 69635
Sub Total 917961 366205
Grand Total 1,709,367 831905
Final Report
18 Highways
2. China - Highways: In 1993, Beijing-Tianjin-Tanggu Expressway was opened to
traffic, which was the first cross-provincial expressway constructed using the World
Bank Loan. In order to speed up the development of expressway in China, in 1992,
the Ministry of Communications (Formerly Ministry of Transport) formulated the Main
National Highway Plan naming it as "Five Vertical and Seven Horizontal Highway
Plan” thereby laying foundation for a sustained and rapid development of China's
expressway. By the year 2007, the Expressway Length got spread over 53,900 Kms
and on account of stepped up investment, the expressway construction was further
accelerated touching the figure of 136,500 Kms by end of 2017. Taking cue from the
experiences of developed countries and considering the future development, it was
decided to build the Expressway Communication, Monitoring and Toll Collection
System simultaneously on this Beijing-Tianjin-Tanggu Expressway, which was
opened to traffic in 1993. Number of Communication Pipes along the expressway
having 6 ducts (4 ducts in a few sections), using only 2 pipes for Expressway
Applications.
3. Korea (RoK) - Highways: Korea Expressway Corporation (KEC) was leasing
Communication Network facilities from Korea Telecom (KT), a Government-owned
Communication Company till 1992, when KEC was permitted to install their own
FOC Network for use in Traffic Control and Operation of Expressways.
1. To meet the requirements of internal High-speed Communication for Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS), to respond to new communication needs and to
diversify KEC’s business areas. A subsidiary company of KEC, which was fully
privatised in 2012, operates 4,700 Kms of Backbone Network along the
Expressway and another 7,700 Kms of along the major Arterial Highway and
Urban Roads. This has been able to provide High-speed and Reliable
Communication service by using a mesh/grid network, which connects major
cities through the shortest path with protection. For co-deployment of FOC along
the Highway, strategic and timely decision is necessary in the early stages of
Highway Planning and Construction keeping in view the benefits of this concept.
2. In 1993, KEC installed the FOC Network Infrastructure for introducing the
Freeway Traffic Management System (FTMS) spread over 320 Kms of
Expressway around Seoul Metropolitan Area.
1. The Network is used for Traffic Management System, Toll Collection System,
In-house Communication System (LAN, WAN) and Emergency Telephones
on the Expressway.
2. Traffic information collected from CCTVs installed at the major key points is
transferred to the Traffic Information Center (TIC) through the Network and
then analysed information, e.g. forecast travel time, traffic accident/incident
report, is provided to drivers through the Variable Message Signage (VMS)
installed at the roadsides.
3. Components and Configuration of FOC Network include Fibre optic cable
pipeline: Installed at 2m under the shoulder lane of expressway; Fibre optic
cable: Implemented in the pipeline; Manhole; Installed at the connection point
Final Report
19 Highways
between the pipeline and the fibre optic cable; Fibre optic communication
equipment.
4. Facilities accommodated in the communication network are bundled as ITS
facilities like Vehicle Detection System (VDS), CCTV, Variable Message
Signage (VMS), traffic center facilities, etc. and toll collection facilities:
Communication network for the toll settlement; In-house telephone network
and In-house computing network. With FTMS, traffic congestion was
expected to reduce by 25%, and the reduction of traffic congestion cost was
expected to be 112 million USD annually.
4. Russian Federation: Length of the federal intercity roads is 53,023,522 kms with
50,133,822 kms assigned to Rosavtodor, and remaining to Avtodor State Company.
It also manages 5 938 bridges and road interchanges, 46 car tunnels, 286
crosswalks at different level.
• In Russia, the largest private Federal operators have practically monopolized the
market of backbone Internet networks. They build the thickest lines of
communication, and then sell to local providers the right to use them. The
government had set a mandatory task for Federal operators in 2014 to enter each
city with a population of 100 thousand people, and in 2018 it is mandatory to be
present in settlements with a population of 8 thousand people. This is a very huge
investment. But as a privilege they have a monopoly on the market of foreign traffic.
Top 10 largest mainline telecom operators in Russia are listed below.
o Rostelecom-500 thousand km of highways;
o MegaFon (including Synterra networks) - 118 thousand km of highways;
o MTS - 117 thousand km of highways;
Picture 1 - FOC Components for
Freeway Traffic Management System
Seoul Metropolitan Area
Final Report
20 Highways
o VimpelCom - 137 km of highways;
o TransTeleCom (TTK) - 76 thousand km of highways;
o Start Telecom - 16 thousand km of highways;
o Raskom - 8.6 thousand km of highways;
o Orange Business Services - 8.5 thousand km of highways;
o RentNet - 5.7 thousand km of highways;
o Telia Sonera International carrier Russia - 2 thousand km of highways.
• First five are Federal Russian units, who invest heavily in development of the network
and are practically monopolists in many segments of high-speed internet market.
Most of the operators from the second five do not provide services to private Russian
users and work more with other providers, leasing their highways.
• PJSC Rostelecom owns an extensive backbone network (Picture 2) that meets all
the market environment requirements. Its backbone digital network, running to a total
length of 500,000 kms using SDH and DWDM technology is complemented by 2,600
km of local networks and provides all types of information transmission services of
voice, data and video across Russia. The network consists of trunk communication
lines connected via international and intercity transit communication nodes with
national and foreign networks and is protected on geographically widespread routes.
It has over 350 access points in Russia and abroad and is connected with 17
international cable systems, including direct connections with 190 networks in 19
countries. Rostelecom has contractual agreements with over 2,300 national and
international fixed-line and mobile telephony operators.
[Rostelecom Network - Picture 2]
5. Thailand - Highways: Total FOC Network in Thailand is spread over a length of
310,000 Kms with about 210,000 Kms deployed by the Public Sector Units and
Final Report
21 Highways
100,000 Kms by the Private Sector Units. The Public Sector entities are Ministry of
Education (MOE), Ministry of Defence (MOD), Ministry of Interior; State Enterprises,
TOT Public Company Limited (TOT), CAT Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT),
Metropolitan Electricity Authority of Thailand (MEA), Electricity Generating Authority
of Thailand (EGAT) and Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA), which have adequate
capacity for usage. The FOC Network, however, is largely within city and
municipality areas. The Roads and Highway Routes are managed by the
Department of Highways (DOH) and the Department of Rural Roads (DORR), under
the control of the Transportation Ministry of Thailand. The network spans over
70,000 Kms across all regions. Co-deployment/Co-habitation of FOC has been done
along the RoW running in parallel.
6. Turkey: Turk Telekom has 268180 kms of FOC infrastructure, out of which 124695
Kms is used as backbone network and remaining part is used for access links. Total
broadband internet subscribers was 71.8 millions and the number of fiber
subscribers was 2.6 millions. By the end of the second quarter of 2018, the spread
of FOC network of other operators was 69888 kms. The number of authorized
telecom infrastructure operators contracted by right of use agreement was 12 and
those contracted by concession agreement was 133. Turkey Electronic
Communication Sector, Market Data Report 2018 2nd Quarter.
https://www.btk.gov.tr/uploads/pages/pazar-verileri/2018-2ceyrekraporu.pdf
(Translation required).
7. Co-deployment Cases on Highways - India: It is important to understand the
practices followed by other countries and Infrastructure players in India, so as to
arrive at next steps and recommendations to facilitate ease of execution and
efficiency in broadband rollouts. Although, quite a few cases were reported on
provision of Concrete Utility Ducts in dense urban areas, only a few were noticed
along the Highways/Railways. Some details are appended below:
• Concrete Utility Duct provided by NHAI between Delhi and Dasna on AH2 in Uttar
Pradesh, as part of the Delhi - Meerut Highway, has been included in the Composite Contract
for Construction of the Highway for length of 27 Kms. The utility duct is constructed in RCC
and is 2M X 2M (Picture 2). This duct has helped to demarcate and secure the RoW in this
dense urbanised area on one hand and to divert the aerial power & telecom cables into these
concrete ducts on the other. The Duct is kept at the edge of the RoW and is covered with
concrete slabs to make it useful as a path way for the pedestrians. Thereafter, between the
drain at the edge of the carriage way and the utility duct, a strip of 2 M is left for the Cyclists,
below which Oil and Gas pipe lines can be taken. Such Concrete Ducts help in clearly
demarcating the RoW and in preventing further encroachments as RoW has to be secured
to start Civil Works (Annexure 2). In addition, existing Utilities, like Overhead Telecom
Cables and Power Transmission Lines etc, coming in the way of Civil Works get diverted
thereby providing space for smooth execution.
Final Report
22 Highways
[Utility Duct of NHAi - Picture 3]
• Utility Ducts provided by Tamil Nadu Road Development Company limited (TNRDC)
along the Rajiv Gandhi Salai, a Major Road connecting Chennai with Mamallapuram. One
of the significant feature of this Project is the construction of service Trenches/Ducts for
carrying utility lines including Electrical, Telephony and Optic Fibre Cables/Wires so as to
avoid re-digging in future. Water and Sewer lines are taken under the footpath. Reference:
http://tnrdc.com/corr/#
• Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT) GIFT City, near Gandhinagar, a
financial hub requires large scale utility infrastructure. GIFT developed the vision of “Digging
Free City” for placing utilities in a Tunnel (Picture 4: Concrete Utility Duct in
Gandhinagar, India) so that there is no need to excavate the roads in future for any utility.
Provision is made for smooth access, separation of utilities, proper drainage, lighting, and
other long-term concerns, such as maintenance and security. Utility tunnel will
accommodate power and ICT cables, raw and treated water supply pipe lines, chilled water
supply to and from District Cooling Pipe (DCP) to various areas, automated waste collection
pipe lines, fire hydrant water pipe line, etc. From safety point of view the tunnel is divided
into WET and DRY sections physically separated.
[GIFT Utility Duct - Picture 4]
Final Report
23 Highways
Wet section is carrying utilities related to water, ICT and others while dry section carries
power cables and have access from top. Material handling or maintenance vehicles can enter
the tunnel. Total length of the tunnel within GIFT City will be 16 kms and will have ventilation
system, rodent repellent system and fire & smoke detection system for safety. The size of
the tunnel varies depending on the number and size of the utilities and may be as large as 8
meters wide X 11 meters deep.
• New Raipur Smart City has planned Utility Ducts covering the entire City in different
phases for various utilities. No Digging Policy is being enforced. (Layout - Annexure 3)
2. Plans & Policy - Guidelines on Highways:
1. Plans & Policy - India:
1. In 1994, DoT issued 1st National Telecom Policy (NTP) India, which introduced
Mobile Licenses to private operators in India under the license system. However,
in 1999, 2nd NTP was introduced, which opened the NLD segment with
favourable license conditions along with revenue sharing and that enabled TSPs
to spread network across India.
2. NTP-2012 India has the vision Broadband on Demand and envisages
leveraging telecom infrastructure to enable all citizens and businesses, both in
rural and urban areas, to participate in the Internet and web economy thereby
ensuring equitable and inclusive development across the nation. It provides the
enabling framework for enhancing India’s competitiveness in all spheres of the
economy. Target and strategies as envisaged in NTP-2012 are to Provide
affordable and reliable broadband-on-demand by the year 2015 and to achieve
175 million broadband connections by the year 2017 and 600 million by the year
2020 at minimum 2 MBps download speed and making available higher speeds
of at least 100 MBps on demand. Provide high speed and high quality broadband
access to all village panchayats through a combination of technologies by the
National (Indian) Telecom Policy 2012- The primary objective of NTP-2012 is
maximizing public good by making available affordable, reliable and secure
telecommunication and broadband services across the entire country. The main
thrust of the Policy is on the multiplier effect and transformational impact of such
services on the overall economy. It recognizes the role of such services in furthering
the national development agenda while enhancing equity and inclusiveness.
Availability of affordable and effective communications for the citizens is at the core
of the vision and goal of the National Telecom Policy – 2012. NTP-2012 also
recognizes the predominant role of the private sector in this field and the consequent
policy imperative of ensuring continued viability of service providers in a competitive
environment. Pursuant to NTP-2012, these principles would guide decisions needed to
strike a balance between the interests of users/ consumers, service providers and
government revenue.
Final Report
24 Highways
year 2014 and progressively to all villages and habitations by 2020. Strategies
contained in the National Telecom Policy-2012 - “To revise the existing
broadband download speed of 256 Kbps to 512 Kbps and subsequently to
2 MBps by 2015 and higher speeds of at least 100 MBps thereafter.”
3. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India
have on has issued guidelines on Nov 22, 2016 (Annexure 1) for provision of
utility ducts, preferably “as close” to the extreme edge of the Right of Way (RoW),
has been made mandatory by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
(MoRTH) in the construction of National Highways with four and six lanes.
4. Draft National Digital Communications Policy 2018 document, which is under
finalisation, includes a Fibre First Initiative and a National Digital Grid with
provision for common service ducts and utility corridors along roads and
highways. In India, extensive consultations are going on for evolving a Common
Utility Duct Policy to include Inter and Intra City deployment of Utilities including
FOC & Power Cables in Brown Field and Green Field Projects. Committee of
Secretaries having representatives of Telecom (Chairperson), Power, Petroleum,
Road Transport & Highways and Railways interacted on this subject on 5th April
2018. Formation of an Authority for Common Utility Ducts and assigning
responsibilities for laying down Procedures, Standards, Rules and Time Lines for
laying and O&M of Underground Infrastructure drawing experts from concerned
Ministries/Departments is under consideration. Issues of Ownership of Common
Utility Ducts, Design to be based on Local Requirement and Market Driven,
Safety and Security inside the Duct, Selection and Responsibilities of the Entity
for Construction of Ducts and Leasing the Space, Mandating for All Green Field
Projects etc are under deliberation.
2. Policy Initiatives - China:
1. In 1992, Ministry of Transport, China issued a Policy in 1992 in order to save on
construction costs (No.Engineering [1992] 830) stipulating that the
Communication System should be designed completely (Including
Communication Pipeline and System) before construction of the Highway and
implemented in stages according to the requirement and growing demand.
During this period, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MOPT) was
planning for a National Communications Backbone Project and wanted that the
Communication Pipes along Expressways be constructed and managed by the
Telecommunication Administration. Transportation department, however, had
another view and believed that the authority for Infrastructure Management within
the scope of the Highway land can only be vested in the transport department.
Finally, both the Ministries deliberated and decided that the Communications
Sector cooperates with the Highway Sector for the Main Line Communication
Pipes, which are built within the RoW of Highway by the Expressway
Construction Project Entity. Laying of the Communication Pipes should be
Final Report
25 Highways
synchronised with the sub-grade civil earth work construction of Expressway.
MoPT may raise some of the funds for construction of Pipelines.
2. After the market reforms in China by the end of 1990s in the field of
Telecommunication, Government no longer funded the construction of
commercial Communication Facilities. Highway Construction Projects, therefore,
started including the cost of construction of Expressway Communication Pipeline
in their estimates. Communication companies rent these pipes for their own long
distance FOC communication system.
3. Such an approach lead to savings on the initial investment on land acquisition
and pipeline construction and it does not get damaged due to other construction
and farming. Simultaneous laying of the Communication Pipes and the
Expressway Civil Infrastructure optimises costs and additional Pipes can be laid.
In the Badaling Expressway, Beijing, 24 hole pipes were laid. Now the practice
is to lay 12 to 24 ducts pipes along the Expressway. On the Expressway, the
management company usually uses 2-hole pipeline and the rest is rented or lies
idle. Based on these communication facilities, the Ministry of Transport was
developed and improved an integrated management system, focusing on key
application such as toll collection, traffic monitoring, emergency management
and public information services. To the end 2012, more than 100,000 Kms of
expressway communication pipelines were laid ranging mostly from 6-12 ducts
and some 24 ducts.
3. Policy ITS - Korea (RoK): Guidelines followed in Korea (RoK) for FOC Co-
deployment are listed out below:
1. Korea Expressway Corporation (KEC) planned to install Fibre Optic Cables along
the Expressways for the internal use of ITS operation as per the National ITS
Picture 5 - National ITS Architecture
(Source: ITS Professional Capacity
Building Program, USDOT)
Final Report
26 Highways
Architecture given above (Picture 5) and for the expansion of its business area
to lease a Network to local Communication Companies.
4. Policy Initiative - Turkey: Initiatives are highlighted below:
1. Turkey Transport and Communication Strategy, Goal 2023 - Stipulates that
a network will be established in the country, which will provide broadband
services without capacity limit by means of the fiber infrastructure. Plans to
become a hub for FOC network (Intersection Point) for the countries in that
region due to its geographical location for Information Technology. Terrestrial
networks along RoW of Railways and Highways and Submarine Cables through
the coasts will be realized. Turkey Transport and Communication Strategy, Goal
2023. http://www.sp.gov.tr/tr/temel-
belge/s/37/Turkiye+Ulasim+ve+Iletisim+Stratejisi
2. National Broadband Strategy and Action Plan (2017-2020) - Sets the 2023
target as "Broadband Anywhere for Everyone" and action of "Facilitating the
passive infrastructure installation with the purpose of developing new Generation
Access Networks" within the strategic objective of "Creating Broadband Supply”
in a planned and rapid manner so that the increased capacity demands can be
met. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure to be
carried out in cooperation with Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,
Information Technologies and Communications Authority, General Directorate
Highways (GDH), General Directorate of State Railways and some other entities.
National Broadband Strategy and Action Plan (2017-2020).
3. The Tenth Development Plan 2014-2018 - Stipulate that communication
technology infrastructure will be developed so as to allow service delivery with
appropriate quality and prices; and development of the Next-Generation Fixed
and Mobile Networks that offer High-speed Internet Access, will be ensured.
Efficiency of the electronic communications sector regulations will be improved
and competition in the sector and the development of co-operation will be
ensured. Turkey will become a Center of International Data Transmission. The
Tenth Development Plan 2014-2018.
http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Kalknma%20Planlar/Attachments/12/Onuncu_
Kalkınma_Planı.pdf
4. Policy Circular on FOC Installation prescribes the Installation Procedures along
the Highway Network of General Directorate of Highways. It aims for the inclusion
of FOC Infrastructure in the Road Design Process and determines the Technical
Rules for FOC laying on Highways/Roads open to traffic meeting the
Communication needs of ITS on State Roads and the Highway Network of
General Directorate of Highways keeping in view the cross section. In addition,
this policy covers the information pertaining types of excavations, backfilling, fibre
cable, HDPE duct, underground warning tapes, manholes, and the required tests.
Final Report
27 Highways
Request of FOC deployment on Highways, GDH takes into consideration of
highway conditions such as traffic safety, road works, expansion plan etc. and
decides within 30 days. If the conditions are not satisfactory, the Crossing Rights
are not approved. General Agreement signed between GDH and Turk Telecom
Inc. provides for free transmission of institutional data of GDH, free allocation of
fibre cores for the systems on Highways.
5. Reference Document for Electronic Communication Infrastructure
(Turkey): Information Technologies and Communications Authority issued a
Technical Document to be followed for establishing Electronic Communication
Infrastructure (ECI). It stipulates the minimum requirements of ECI facilities and
covers general standards for ECI facilities, infrastructure excavation standards
for underground facilities. Specifically, infrastructure channel excavation lays
down seven categories by ground types ranging from paved roads (asphalt and
so) & pavement-footpath, to transverse passages, normal ground and other road
crossings, to river, brook, swamp and wet ground crossings and sloping land and
erosive area crossings to bridge crossings. The depths of the channel excavation
varies from 40 Cms to 120 Cms based on the soil. Standards for trenching,
backfilling, properties of HDPE duct and its accessories, manholes and aerial
lines are also stipulated.
5. Broadband initiatives and experience in other countries is briefly covered in
Annexure 7.
3. Governance & Institutional Aspects:
1. India: Introduction of National Telecom Policy (NTP) 1999 by the Government
brought an opportunity for TSPs in the public as well as private sector to
commercially use FOC network by leasing huge surplus bandwidth capacity and the
associated infrastructure. Since then, Indian Telecom Sector has taken an upward
slope and growth curve. DoT created a PSU BSNL and also authorised RailTel,
GailTel and PGCIL, all PSUs and a number of private operators, listed in the table
above, to have their own network and provide services.
2. China: Ministry of Information Industry issued the Standard: Telecommunication
Service Classification Catalogue. In this standard, basic telecommunications
services do not include the leasing and operation of communications pipeline,
therefore no license is required for the operation of the communication pipeline after
2003. Accordingly, opinions on FOC ducts/pipelines issued by the Ministry of
Information Industry in 2001 - Article 1 - the leasing and sale of communications
pipelines shall be part of the basic telecommunications services, and shall be
brought under the management of the communications department; Article 2 - the
Ministry of Information Industry and the provincial communications administrations
shall be responsible for the overall planning and construction management of
communication pipelines and Article 3 - the right to the construction of
communication pipelines should correspond to the right to operate. Only the basic
Final Report
28 Highways
telecom operators can participate in the construction or joint construction of
communication pipelines are basically invalid after 2003.
3. Korea (RoK): In 1992, Korea Expressway Corporation (KEC) was authorized to
install their own FOC For use in traffic control and operations of expressways.
Earlier, they were leasing communication network from Korea Telecom (KT). KEC
has invested in FOC to satisfy the demand for high-speed communication for ITS,
to respond quickly to changing communication environment and to diversify KEC’s
business areas. Most of the FOCs provided by KEC is while constructing the
highway. There are cases, where telecommunication operators lease a pipeline
along the highway and implement their own FOC. The implementation is strictly
managed as per national standards for nation-wide compatibility. These standards
are drawn up by government-owned telecommunication company, Korea Telecom
(KT). The standards define detailed specifications, e.g. common criteria for
implantation, cable burial method, cable connecting/branching method, cable testing
method and overall supervision method.
4. Russia - Institutional Entities:
1. Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, the
Governmental agency for telecommunications, mass media, IT and postal
services, is responsible for developing and implementing national policy and legal
regulation of telecommunications, electronic media, development of internet,
television, radio broadcasting, information technologies, including creation of
government information and access to these resources, personal data
processing and internet governance and has the objectives of high rate of
development of IT sector, public services provided in electronic form, equal
access to telecom services and Internet.
2. Ministry of Transport is a federal executive authority, which carries out functions
on elaborating state policy and normative lawful regulation in the spheres of air,
marine, rail and road transport, urban and industrial electric transport, road
infrastructure, transport security and traffic management in terms of
organizational and legal measures to manage traffic on the roads.
3. Federal Road Agency (Rosavtodor) is the executive authority, which provides
public services and administers the state vehicle and road facilities, including
registry of motor roads and services to transport safety. It is authorized to execute
the obligations arising from the international treaties, signed by Russian
Federation, in its capacity of public services provider and public property
administration. Other areas cover the functions of the public commissioner of
federal goal, research and engineering and innovation programs and projects in
the relevant lines of work, including the “Motor Roads” subprogram as a part of
the targeted “Development of transport systems of the Russian Federation”
(2010-2020) It administrates the federal motor roads directly and via the system
of Federal Government Agencies (FGA), that provide operation management on
Final Report
29 Highways
the federal intercity roads and engineering structures assigned to FGA, along with
safe and smooth travel of vehicles on intercity roads.
4. JSC Rostelecom: It is one of the largest digital service providers in Russia. The
company operates in all segments of the telecommunications market and covers
millions of users across the country. The company is the market leader in
providing telecom services to government bodies and corporates of all levels.
5. TTK: The transcontinental highway of the TTK Eurasia Highway has connections
with communication networks of all neighbouring countries with Russia, which
includes China, Mongolia, Japan, North Korea, Finland, the Baltic States and the
CIS and is the optimal route between Europe and Asia.
(Picture 6 - TTK Network)
6. JSC SMARTS, a specialized telecom company, operates with advanced
technologies for fiber optic cable laying along road infrastructure. The project,
“Creation of Highway Telecom Networks” was approved by the supervisory
board of the agency for strategic initiatives headed by the President of Russian
Federation with inputs from relevant ministries in April 2014 for creation of super-
powerful telecom infrastructure having highest level of reliability for innovative
development of technologies and building of digital economy. It involves laying
of about 150,000 kms of FOC in the territories of 85 constituents of Russia.
(Picture 7 - JSC SMARTS Network)
Final Report
30 Highways
7. It started in 2016 from the pilot zones in Samara (Volga region) with laying of
600 kms of FOC along regional highways, 60 kms of the highway in Kaluga
(Central region). The final aim of the project is creation and operations of heavy
duty, public, highly profitable telecom infrastructure for building advanced
communication networks and ITS, communication networks for law enforcement
agencies, Federal and regional authorities, state and commercial organizations.
The consumers are offered individual microtubules, fiber optic cables or
individual optical fibres.In June 2018 JSC SMARTS together with National
Research University of information technologies, mechanics and optics in Saint
Petersburg launched into operation the high-tech Data Processing Center in
Samara (Volga region). With two other Data Processing Centers in the city of
Togliatti (Volga region), this ensures development and further operation of
management system of scalable, geographically distributed Data Processing
Centers, integrated by communication lines, protected with the use of quantum
encryption technologies. This development allows to change the keys few dozen
times per second, which make it almost useless to attempt to intercept data.
5. Thailand: For FOC deployment by TSPs along RoW of Railway including cross-
border issues requires obtaining authorization with type three license from NBTC
and right to use RoW from SRT; getting national permission from Ministry of Interior,
Royal Thai Armed Forces and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and acquiring approval from
the Bridge Management Committee (BMC), where FOCs route crosses the border.
For a national permission, operators essential to request approval from district chief,
district office; governor, provincial hall; department of provincial administration,
Ministry of Interior; Royal Thai Survey department, Royal Thai Armed Forces and
Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
6. Turkey: Responsibility for planning and follow up is with Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure, which is carried out in co-operation with Ministry of Environment and
Urbanization, Information Technologies and Communications Authority, GDH,
General Directorate of State Railways and some other entities. Administration of
areas and premises in the possession of GDH to install Fibre Optic network in Turkey
on the inter-urban road/highway network for meeting its own requirements and of
authorised Telecom Operators for other national communication needs.
Telecommunication operators cannot use road infrastructure without paying license
fee or lease charge. Only Operators, authorized by Information Technologies and
Communications Authority under an agreement/protocol can install FOCs along the
roads/highways. Electronic communication network or infrastructure established by
special laws of public institutions and organisations for their exclusive services are
not subject to authorisation.
- Protocols with Telecom Infrastructure Operators: Some protocols were signed
between GDH and Telecom Infrastructure Operators for establishment of FOC on
highways network laterally and longitudinally. GDH has some rights arising from
Final Report
31 Highways
protocols signed with Turk Telekom, the biggest telecom infrastructure operator,
such as free transmission of institutional data, free allocation of fiber cores to
General Directorate of Highways. Some road purpose systems such as tunnel
control systems, toll collection systems, ITS on highways network communicate by
using fibers provided by Turk Telekom in the scope of protocols. The established
FOC on highways network accounts for roughly 15 000 km. Source: General
Directorate of Highways
- Law on Organization and Duties of General Directorate of Highways:
Determines the organizational structure and duties of General Directorate of
Highways. According to the law, GDH is responsible for motorways, state and
provincial roads. The design, construction, maintenance, operation and
determination of the standards of traffic signs of these roads fall into GDH’s area
of responsibility. GDH is authorized to install receiver and transmitter wireless
stations, and communication networks for meeting road purpose and institutional
requirements by this Law. Electronic Communication Network or Infrastructure
established by special laws of Public Institutions and Organisations for their
exclusive services are not subject to authorisation by Law on Electronic
Communication. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2010/07/20100713-1.htm
4. Legal & Regulatory Framework: Enabling Rules, Acts, Laws and Regulations
for allowing RoW to Railways and Highways; permitting use of RoW for deployment,
Operations & Maintenance of Telecom Cables/Lines are extracted below:
1. Indian Legal Regulations:
1. The Control of National Highway (Land and Traffic) Act 2002 (India) Chapter
VI and Relevant Rules 2004 - REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION ON
HIGHWAY LAND FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINS, ETC. Para 38.
Construction on highway land.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, no person other than a Highway Administration or a person authorised
by such Administration in this behalf shall construct, install, shift, repair, alter
or carry any poles, pillars, advertisement towers, transformers, cable wire,
pipe, drain, sewer, canal, railway line, tramway, telephone boxes, repeater
station, street, path or passage of any kind on highway land or across, under
or over any Highway except with the prior permission in writing of the
Highway Administration for such purpose.
(2) Any person who intends to obtain the permission under sub-section (1)
shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Highway
Administration containing therein the purpose and period of occupancy of
Highway, location and part of the Highway to be occupied, method of
execution of work, period of construction and method of restoration of such
part of the Highway.
(3) The Highway Administration shall consider the application made under
sub-section (1) and if it is satisfied that there is no alternative other than the
Highway in respect of which the permission is sought under the application
Final Report
32 Highways
where the land can be found to locate the public utility, it may give permission
in writing as sought in the application: Provided that while giving such
permission, the Highway Administration may impose such conditions as it may
deem fit to protect— (i) the Highway from damage; and (ii) the traffic on the
Highway from obstruction, and may also impose such fees and other
charges as may be prescribed on the person to whom such permission is
given in respect of any land forming part of the Highway, occupied or applied
to the proposed work or construction under permission and also impose on
such person the expenditure, if any, incurred by the Highway Administration
for repairing any damage caused to the Highway by laying or shifting of any
structure, article or equipment under the permission.
(4) If any person, in contravention of sub-section (1), makes any construction
or carries out any other work, the Highway Administration may, at its own
expenses, cause such construction or other work to be removed from the
Highway and restore the Highway in the condition as it was immediately before
giving permission for such construction or other work under sub-section (3)
and such expenses together with fifteen per cent. thereof as additional
charges and fine imposed by the Highway Administration taking into account
the nature of the damages caused by such construction or other work, which
shall not be less than five hundred rupees per square metre of land used for
such construction or other work, but shall not exceed the cost of such land,
shall be recovered from such person in accordance with the provisions
contained in section 27 as if such expenses, additional charges and fine were
the expenses, additional charges and fine recoverable under that section.
2. Indian Telegraph Act 1885 with Amendments Jan 2004 - Para 4. Exclusive
privilege in respect of telegraphs, and power to grant licenses. (1) Within
India, the Central Government shall have exclusive privilege of establishing,
maintaining and working telegraphs: Provided that the Central Government may
grant a License, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it
thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part
of India.
10. Power of Telegraph Authority to place and maintain Telegraph Lines
and posts - The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and
maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon
any immovable property: Provided that— (a) the telegraph authority shall not
exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a
telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so
established or maintained;
(b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of
user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the
telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise
those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or
Final Report
33 Highways
management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority;
and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph
authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised
those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause
(c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage
sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.
3. Indian Easement Act 1882 with Amendments - Stipulates the legal provisions
for allowing access to Public Utility and Right of Way to Entities based on license
fee or lease rental.
4. TRAI Recommendations on the subject are at Annexure 6.
2. China - Laws and Legal Framework: Some of the applicable laws are appended
below:
1. Highway Law Article 26: “Highway construction must conform to the technical
standard of highway engineering”. This article provides mandatory provisions for
highway construction to be implemented in accordance with standards and
specifications. This makes that the design standards, technical standards and
engineering specifications for expressway communication systems and
communication pipelines are mandatory legal documents.
2. Telecommunication Regulations - 2000, revised in 2016: Article 45 When
planning, constructing roads, bridges, tunnels or underground railways, the
relevant units or departments concerned shall notify the provincial, autonomous
regions and cities administrative agencies and telecommunications business
operators in advance, and shall negotiate and reserve telecommunication
pipelines and other matters.
3. Korea (RoK) - Legal Framework: Extracts of some of the applicable Acts are
appended below for reference.
1. Road Act: Road Act provides the basis for establishing communication facilities
along the roads. It is mandatory for a road management authority to provide traffic
information to the road users. Communication facilities are installed along the
road as a road appurtenance. Article 60 (Establishment, Operation, etc. of Road
Traffic Information System) stipulates as under:
(1) A road management authority may establish and operate a road traffic
information system to efficiently conduct administrative affairs relating to
using and managing roads.
(2) A road management authority may collect, process the road information
specified in the following subparagraphs through a road traffic information
system and provide such information to the general public through the road
traffic information system: Information about Road Traffic and about Road
Accidents.
Final Report
34 Highways
2. National Transport System Efficiency Act: National Transport System
Efficiency Act provides a basis for the collection, communication, processing and
provision of traffic information, and the installation and operation of a traffic
center. The act also stipulates that each road management authority should follow
a standardised ITS system in Article 73. Article 73 (Formulation, etc. of Master
Plans for ITS) - The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall formulate
a ten-year master plan for ITS on a national scale to promote the development
and dissemination of intelligent land, marine and air transport systems.
3. Telecommunications Business Act: This Act provides a basis for the Road
Authority to provide Communication Facilities to Telecommunication carriers.
Article 35 (Provision of Equipment and Facilities)
(1) Where a Telecommunications Business Operator requests a common
telecommunications business operator or an authority that constructs,
operates, or manages roads, railroads, subways, water and sewage systems,
electrical equipment, telecommunications line equipment and facilities, etc.
(hereinafter referred to as "Facility Management Authority") to provide him/her
with ducts, common utility conduits, poles, cables, stations, or other
equipment (including telecommunications equipment and facilities; hereinafter
the same shall apply) or facilities (hereinafter referred to as "equipment and
facilities"), such common telecommunications business operator or such
facility management authority may provide equipment and facilities under a
contract with him/her.
(2) Any of the following common telecommunications business operators or
facility management authorities shall provide equipment and facilities by
concluding a contract.
(a) Korea Expressway Corporation established under the Korea Expressway
Corporation Act;
(b) Korea Rail Network Authority established under the Korea Rail Network
Authority Act;
4. Pakistan - Regulatory Framework: Government of Pakistan has a regulatory framework
and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for preservation and commercial use of right of
way along National Highways and Motorways network. In highways and motorways projects,
there is a provision of laying cables, utilities and other services. Highways Authority allows
laying of these cables to service providers subject to fulfillment of requirements laid down
under the rules and payment of certain charges. Government of Pakistan is laying dedicated
optic fibre along our highways and motorways for electronic tolling and other facilities to
provide ITS. This will also available for use by other service providers in the telecom and
communications sector. (Details given after the Workshop on 22nd Nov 2018)
5. Russian Federation: Legal and Framework:
1. The legal support of the Federal state institution Rosgransroy is provided by the
number of Governmental orders, among them:
Final Report
35 Highways
• Charter of the Federal state institution “Rosgranstroy”. The technical regulation
is based on national and international standards, recommendations of
International Telecommunication Union, which provides interoperability of
digital services within Russia and neighbour countries.
2. Federal road agency (Rosavtodor), responsible for developing of road
infrastructure, has the following technical regulations for the laying of fiber optic
cables along federal roads:
• Departmental building codes (VSN 116-2002) “Manuals for the design of
linear-cable communication facilities’
• SSKTB TOMASS “Guide for installation of cables with hydrophobic filling for
local communication networks, approved by The Order of the Ministry of
communications of Russia”;
• SP 42.13330.2011. City building. Planning and construction of urban and rural
settlements. Updated version of SNiP 2.07.01-89
• RD 45.120-2000 (NTP 112-2000). Norms of technological design. Urban and
rural telephone networks.
• In each special case there is the individual package of legal documents,
regulating the terms and conditions of the treaty.
5. Thailand - Legal Framework and Regulations: National Broadcasting and
Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) is an independent state regulatory body in
Thailand, which was established under the Act to Assign Radio Frequency and to
regulate the Broadcasting and Telecommunication Services B.E. 2553. NBTC plays
an important role to allocate the nation’s radio spectrum and regulate broadcasting
and telecommunications sectors for public benefit, including telecommunication
license. Three types of operating licenses are given:
1. Type One: Granted to the telecommunications business operator, who operates without his or
her own network, which are deemed appropriate to be fully liberalized;
2. Type Two: Granted to the telecommunications business operator, who operates with or without
his or her own network, which is intended for a limited group of people, or services with no
significant impact on free and fair competition or on public interest and consumers and who
fulfills the standard criteria prescribed in advance in notification of the Commission;
3. Type Three: Granted to the telecommunications business operator, who operates with his or
her own network, which is intended for general public, or services, which may cause a significant
impact on free and fair competition or on public interest, or a service which requires special
consumer protection.
6. Turkey - Legal Framework & Regulations
1. Law on Electronic Communication: The Law on Electronic Communication No:
5809 is the fundamental legislation for electronic communication services and is
intended to create effective competition, to ensure protection of consumer rights,
to promote deployment of services, to ensure efficient and effective use of
resources, to promote new investments and technological developments in
Final Report
36 Highways
communication infrastructure, network and services through regulations and
inspections in electronic communication sector and to determine
relevant principles and procedures thereto as defined by the law. Law on
Electronic Communication.
http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5809.pdf
- Electronic communication infrastructure: All kinds of network units of electronic
communication including terminals and lines, switch equipment, hardware and
software, related facilities and integrative parts of them,
- Operator: Any legal entity, which has the right to provide electronic
communication services and/or to provide electronic communication network
and to operate the infrastructure within the framework of authorization,
- Crossing right: The rights offered to operators for the establishment, removal,
maintenance and rehabilitation of the network and infrastructure required for
electronic communication services and for the under, through and over crossing
the public and private property,
- Crossing right provider: The owners of property and/or right holders of the
property including state owned property which are subject to crossing right,
- Authorization: The qualifying of companies and assigning of specific rights and
responsibilities to these companies peculiar to electronic communication
services in order for offering electronic communication services and/or providing
electronic communication network.
- Authorization of electronic communication service: Electronic
communication service can be provided and/or electronic communication
network or infrastructure can be established and operated subsequent to
authorization granted by Information Technologies and Communications
Authority considering the strategy and policies of the Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure
- Acceptance of crossing right request: Public institutions and organizations
evaluate the applications for crossing rights in avoidance of delay and with
priority and finalize them within sixty days. Public institutions and organizations
evaluate the applications without discrimination and transparently.
- Responsibilities related with crossing right: Crossing right provider allow the
taking of required measures and realization of the works provided that expenses
of them will be covered by the operator in order to enable the operator to perform
its activities under the scope of crossing right in a safe and uninterrupted way.
2. Circular on Fiber Optic Communication Infrastructure: Prescribes installation
procedures and technical rules of FOC along new/open to traffice highway for its
own requirements and aims for inclusion of FOC in Road Design Process
meeting the Communication needs of ITS keeping in view the cross section. In
addition, this policy covers the information pertaining types of excavations,
backfilling, fiber cable, HDPE duct, underground warning tapes, manholes, and
the required tests. Circular on Fiber Optic Communication Infrastructure. No:
2017/E.6, 14 August 2017
Final Report
37 Highways
3. Right of Way Process: Crossing right covers the right to cross the electronic
communication infrastructure and their supportive equipment under, through and
over of the private and/or public property, and to establish, replace, remove,
control, maintain and repair electronic communication to offer electronic
communication service, and the right to use these property areas in the scope of
the provisions of the Law on Electronic Communication for similar purposes. If a
facility sharing opportunity is available on the route that applicant operator
requests crossing right through it, firstly this opportunity is assessed. Applications
for crossing right made to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure shall be
assessed within thirty days. The Ministry directs the applicant to the related
crossing right provider. Crossing right provider has to assess and finalise the
application of operator within sixty days. The operator is also notified In the case
of disapprove of application for crossing right with the reasons for disallowance.
Operator and crossing right provider can make the agreements freely for crossing
right without prejudice the conditions of Turkish Civil Code no 4721 providing that
they are not contrary to the related legislation and regulations of Information
Technologies and Communication Authority. Request of crossing right on
highways network General Directorate of Highways takes into consideration of
highway conditions such as traffic safety, road works. If the conditions are not
satisfactory, the Crossing Rights are not approved.
http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5809.pdf
4. ITS Project: GDH conducts ITS projects on highways network. The objective is
establishment of an efficient communication infrastructure, which provides
communication between the systems of ITS and with other transport modes.
Communication will be provided by fiber optic cable and wireless communication
systems. Activities to initiate provision of fiber optic cable on some sections of
highways are going on to cover 15.000 kms of finally.
5. Financial Basis & Cost Sharing on Highways: India experience and feedback
from Consultants of other Countries indicates largely similar practices based on laid
down norms for Licensing Fee/Leasing Charges, sharing based on mutually negotiated
commercial terms driven by intense competition. Observations are given below:
1. In India, interaction indicates that Financing of FOC Projects, which are executed
by the Public Entities, is largely driven by their internal communication requirements
for Monitoring & Control and Operations & Maintenance and Strategy for generating
Revenue from the Surplus Capacity. Private Companies, however, make Financial
Investments on FOC Network for Commercial purposes and offer various Services
and Applications in this intensively competitive market of Mobile Communication and
Internet Data and Speed. Initial Installation Cost Sharing amongst Entities has not
practically taken off due to intense competition, although, sharing of Network and
Bandwidth is done to provide the required QoS and meet the SLA requirements
based on Commercial Agreements. Cost of Lease Rental, License Fee of RoW and
Repairs and Restoration of Highways/Railways is borne by the Telecom Service
Providers (TSPs) based on laid down guidelines based on the land area used and
Final Report
38 Highways
the local circle rates to be pad in advance for the period for which the space is
required. In case of Public Utility Services, this is 33% of the prescribed Lease
Rental/License Fee. (MoRTH Guidelines of Nov 2016). PSEs (BSNL, PGCIL and
RailTel) have come together for the Bharat Net Project (NOFN) as the same has been
funded through Universal Service Obligation Funds (USOF) as per the Telegraph
Act and RoW costs have been waived off by the concerned States. Operation and
Maintenance of all the FOC Networks is under the control of the Entity owning the
Network and is offering Services to the TSPs, ISPs and MSOs.
2. Korea (RoK) - Cost Sharing Principles: Korea Communications Commission
provides the principles for contract conditions and pricing criteria for providing
Telecommunication Facilities between public agencies or private companies. This
includes the Basic Principles of Facility Provision and the Principles of Calculation of
Utilisation as per standard Cost Calculation Method stipulated in the Articles based
on negotiated mutual agreement and the Terms and Conditions. It will include the
sum of depreciation, operating expenses, and investment compensation. The
utilisation of each line equipment is calculated by multiplying the number of facilities
provided and the length provided to the standard service unit. This may be done every
two years in consideration of technological development trends and changes in
management environment. The methods of calculating are:
1. Standard Cost Method - It calculates the cost for the redesigned communication
network after efficiently redesigning the communication network.
2. Planned Price Method - It calculates a price that compensates the appropriate
profit for the company when a government agency purchases a product or
service.
3. Overall Costing Method - It consists of setting the charging level considering
the total income and establishing the charging system that charges the total
amount to the consumers.
4. Incremental Cost Method - It means a change in total cost when increasing or
decreasing output, and fixed costs are not included in incremental costs.
3. Turkey: Giving priority to facility sharing and common use is essential in the
application of crossing right. Crossing Rights Fee to be paid by TSPs is specified in
the Regulation on the transition of all kinds of cables and similar material used in the
fixed and mobile communication infrastructure or networks. This fee, which is
requested from the TSP using the Crossing Right for the locations outside the real
and private legal entities cannot exceed the prices stated in the Crossing Right Price
Scheme. The Regulation on Administration of Areas and Premises in the Possession
of GDH is considered for the crossing right through highways network. Telecom
infrastructure operators have to pay utilization permit fee (crossing right fee) to
establish communication infrastructure on highways network. The utilization permit
fee is calculated by taking into account of three parameters; Type of organization,
Current Value of the Field and Excavation Area (m2) for highway implementations.
The utilization permit fee is paid at the stage of signing of protocol. TSPs meet the
Final Report
39 Highways
expenses of Construction, Maintenance and Operation of the Communication
Infrastructure established by them.
6. Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Models - Highways:
1. India Practices:
1. Highways: Operations and Maintenance of the FOC and Power Cable Network
as required for the Transport Infrastructure, which includes Indicators & Displays,
Cameras, Street Lights etc, is reported to be done by the Road/Highway Entity
either in-house or on an out-sourced basis.
2. TSP Entities bear the Cost of Operations and Maintenance of the FOC Network
including any License Fee/LeaseRental for use of theDuct or the RoW.
3. Co-deployment is in nascent stage along National Highways, State Highways,
District Roadways, Rural Roads but is significant in Urban Roadways with several
cases of co-build in cities. With the advent of Smart Cities with an investment of
about INR 5600 Million, it would gain further momentum on urban roads, where
the need for co-build is for FOC media through ducts in shared conduits as well
as passive infra like towers, shelters etc. While the CAPEX issue can be largely
addressed by agreed cost-sharing among TSPs, there needs to be a clear
understanding on O&M and the OPEX towards O&M. O&M Expenditure sharing
would not be as simple as sharing as CAPEX as there are several issues
involved like Capacity, Reliability & Availability, Network Model & Responsibility
Matrix, which needs to be considered to put in place a robust O&M Mechanism.
The OPEX calculation would then be easier and sliced among Co-deployment
Entities.
2. Korea (RoK) Practices - Operation & Maintenance (O&M) for Co-deployment -
O&M of the FOC Network depends on the manner the implementation is done.
1. (Case A) In case of the Implementation by the Highway Authority, the O&M is
also subjected to the Authority and the Telecommunication Operator pays to the
Authority for it.
2. (Case B) In case of the Implementation by the Telecommunication Operator (By
leasing the Pipeline along the Highway), the Operator may directly operate and
maintain the facility or,
3. (Case C) May entrust the management work to the Highway Authority. In the
case of A or C, the Telecommunication Operator should pay for the operation
and maintenance, for which the method of determining the amount is prescribed
by law in RoK based on ‘Principles on Cost Sharing among Agencies.’
7. Benefits & Opportunities - Highways:
1. HDPE pipes for FOC laid in the RoW reduce the possibility of damage on account of
construction and farming activities. In concrete conduits, this damage is negligible.
Final Report
40 Highways
As these pipelines are laid in the highway land, it is not damaged by other
construction and farming
2. RoW has to be secured to start civil works. Concrete conduits help in clearly
demarcating the RoW and in preventing further encroachments. Existing Utilities, like
Overhead Telecom Cables and Power Transmission Lines etc, coming in the way of
Civil Works get diverted thereby providing space for smooth execution.
3. Save significant Costs over the Life Cycle minimising multiple civil works and repairs
at the time of laying, crossing, connecting and maintaining FOC.Co-deployment
saves one-time investment in land requisition and pipeline construction in the early
stages of the construction of the communications system. Efficient allocation of
resources through prevention of duplicated network by sharing Infrastructure in a fair,
transparent and competitive environment.
4. Prevention of improper urban development from communication network
construction. Minimise blockade/disturbance to Road Traffic and other Utilities during
the house of work and/or maintenance.
5. As it is easy to arrange a low cost simultaneous construction of the FOC pipeline
and the expressway infrastructure, additional ducts/pipelines can be built in when
building highways. On the Badaling Expressway, Beijing, 24 hole duct/pipelines were
built.
6. ICT Services along the Transport Sector and the adjacent Rural Hinterland using
Sensors to warn of developing Faults. Customer Information Displays, Interactive
Voice Response Systems (IVRS) and Internet Kiosks. Speed Sensing and Policing
on Roads using Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Video Analytics including
quick Disaster Recovery. Access/Passport Control, Security Screening and Customs
Information Network. ITS, Traffic Control Signals, Fleet Control, Asset Monitoring
and Operations Control. Bank ATMs and Internet Kiosks on the way at Stoppages
for using Rest Room, Refreshments etc.
8. Constraints & Challenges - Highways: Although, optical fibre is the globally
preferred technology for extending high-speed broadband to end users for backhaul and
access networks, multiple challenges related to Right of Way (RoW), lack of standards,
unavailability of mapping of data related to fibre, etc. impede the growth as explained
below:
1. There are difficulties in obtaining permissions from multiple entities like State Local
Bodies, NHAI, Railways, AAI, Defence, Canal & Bridge Authorities, Oil & Gas PSUs,
Water & Electricity Boards as well as Forest & Wildlife Departments, which cause
uncertainty and delays in the rollout of planned infrastructure.
2. More number of Entities, which are required for providing Services to the large wide
spread population, need their own FOC Network on the same Route.This makes the
situation worse in the area of limited RoW. Sharing of Infrastructure (Duct, Fibre &
Bandwidth) under a Common Government Policy would optimise Capex for the
Country.
Final Report
41 Highways
3. Lack of Uniform and Transparent Pricing Policy for the Lease Rental or License
Fee across the country, discretion in interpreting and implementing it and variations
from place to place create hindrance in FOC network Rollout.
4. Inadequate documentation and sharing of Location Details of FOC Network
deployed along the RoW of the Transport Infrastructure. This leads to damage to
FOC Network in case of civil works for construction or expansion.
5. Non availability of Standards & Policy Directives for FOC on RoW acceptable to
Entities of all types of utilities ranging from Highway & Roads to Railways, Bridges &
Canals, Power, Gas, Water and Sewage and Buildings and Other Structures.
6. Transport Infrastructure Entities are not very convinced about the utility and
economic benefits, which can accrue to them by provision of the Utility Duct/Conduit
and therefore, no ownership.
7. Cost of provision of the Concrete Utility Ducts or Conduits close to the extreme edge
of the Right of Way (RoW), which is between 50000 to 60000 USD per km per duct
depending on the local conditions & terrain, is not acceptable to the transport
infrastructure entities. Outsourcing/Leasing Out of Ducts requires extensive efforts on
the part of Transport Infrastructure Entities.
8. Extensive damage & disruption to Telecommunication Network takes place during
Natural Calamities (Landslides) and Accidents (Bridge Collapse), when the
communication is needed the most. Picture 8 below.
(Picture 8 - Damage to Telecom Infrastructure)
9. Safety and Security of FOC and the Manpower inside the Utility Duct is an area of
Concern.
9. Conclusions & Inferences - Highways:
1. Asia Pacific region is extremely vital for the Global Economy. However, it has
difficulties in developing regional communities, which have relatively poor economy,
social infrastructure and varying political backgrounds as compared to other regional
communities. ICT penetration has a higher potential for economic & social
development in the present day information age than it was in the industrial age.
Final Report
42 Highways
2. United Nations has flagged the issue of Digital Divide between developed and
developing countries, and therefore, it is important to install a High Speed
Information Network between the Asia Pacific nations to achieve our common goals
of co-development and co-existence in conformity with the SDGs. Fibre Optic Cable
Network along the AH and Tran-Asian Railways be approached from the
perspective of regional economic community and ‘regional’ overhead capital.
3. Policy & Plan, Legal and Regulatory Framework related to Co-deployment of FOC
are generally established by Authorities and Law in most countries in some form or
the other. However, there are ambiguities on Issues between Entities,
Implementation is not complete, Agreements are not mandatory, Sharing of
Infrastructure is missing, Data pertaining to FOC deployment is not mapped on the
GIS ported on an open Website and most efficient solution is not emerging in some
cases.
4. Penetration of Telecom, WiFi and ICT Services in the Rural hinterland in the
Country is substantially low on account of inadequate Long Haul FOC backbone,
unorganised Access Network to the end user, inadequate Laptop Computers/Smart
Phones and absence of Content in the Local Language.
5. Low per capita income requires these services to be made affordable in the Rural
sector and therefore many of the Private Service Providers have not ventured into
such areas.
6. Highway entities have allowed Use of RoW by PSUs, Telecom/FOC Network
Operators and Service Providers with specific permissions to lay along or cross the
transport infrastructure with one time charge based on local land rates and in case
of Universal Services without any charge.
7. Each entity has set its Own FOC Network Infrastructure laid on different routes and
paths by repeatedly digging along the RoW without any sharing of space or pipe or
duct.
8. For provision of Utility Ducts or Conduits close to the extreme edge of the Right of
Way (RoW) presently there is a Policy only in a few countries. Consultations &
Interactive Sessions are being held with concerned ministries.
Final Report
43 Highways
10. Recommendations for Highways:
1. Installation of FOC Network with a defined minimum number of Fibres (48 or 96) in
Concrete Ducts or Bundle of HDPE Ducts along identified AHs within the country;
and across the border under a bilateral agreement; be mandated by the
Governments. Department of Telecom may be made as the central authority
responsible to enforce the directive through nominated authorised entities, which
could be the TSPs and/or Highway PSUs for national and international long distance
FOC links.
2. Mechanism for Single Window Clearance, Approvals, Permits in defined time limit
for Construction of the Utility Conduit or Bundle of Ducts by an Authority comprising
members from all stakeholders be put in place. Permission for FOC/Conduit Laying,
Leasing of Space in the Conduits, Costs for Way Leave, Installation, Repair &
Maintenance, Location and Layout Designs be stipulated by a notified Central
Authority comprising of Members from all units & stakeholders. Single-window
clearance in a time-bound manner be made imperative for all RoW proposals at the
level of the States and in the Central Government. These clearances should be
administered online with a defined turnaround time. The reasons for denial of RoW
permission may be recorded.
3. RoW Policies are critical for all entities and much needs to be done to strengthen
them to ensure more transparency, faster deployment and ease of doing business for
the industry. It is important that RoW for broadband infrastructure build-outs are
seamless and time-bound. Uniform RoW Policy across all departments be issued
based on rationalised License Fee/Lease Charges/Rental for the Common Utility
Duct/Pipe/Cable by the Central Government/Authority and implemented at Local
levels without any arbitrary interpretation.
4. Open transparent lease of space in the Utility Duct/Pipe/Cable to any FOC Network
Operator/Service Provider with defined charges per km per year based on the
location and region. The only charges levied should be towards restoration or
reinstatement which should be directly linked to restoring the surroundings to their
original state. The RoW rates should therefore be standardized and fixed and uniform
procedures must be brought into practice for all agencies.
5. “Dig or Duct Only Once,” “Integrate the Planning of Utilities” and “Collaborate to
Share the Infrastructure” be the guiding principles for Transport Infrastructure and
ICT Entities. Lay multiple (12 to 24) HDPE ducts/pipelines and share to avoid
repeated digit subsequently.
6. Encourage Utility Corridors: Highway and State Road Units may provide ducting
along all new or upgradation projects. Provision of Utility Ducts or Conduits close
to the extreme edge of the at the time of construction or expansion of Highways with
four and six lanes may be mandated by the Ministries responsible for Road Transport
and Highways. Specific standards may be laid down by a Central Authority for
Final Report
44 Highways
adoption by TSPs/PSUs and other concerned entities responsible for
Roads/Highways, Natural Gas Pipe Lines, Water, Sewage and Electricity
Transmission and Telecom Networks and may be enforced with penalties for non-
compliance and ‘call before you dig’ policy. infrastructure sectors such as road
construction authorities/agencies must include, in their construction design policy, a
provision for a utility duct to enable laying of FOC for all new infrastructure and also
adopt similar measures in existing projects in a “Dig Only Once” policy approach.
7. All Utilities and Ducts along with FOC POPs/POIs of all Entities/Entities should be
GIS mapped and shared across the stakeholders for optimised Installation, Reliable
Operations & Maintenance on the Web Site of the Common Utility Duct Authority.
Status of space, pipe & fibre availability and hardware for bandwidth sharing can be
displayed. RoW agencies/authorities should mark the area for laying of
underground cables at a significant distance from roads considering expansion
plans over the next 10 years to protect the investment in fibre infrastructure and avoid
service disruption during expansions.
8. Strong administrative and legal provisions (even contractual) need to be put in place
for payment of compensation in case of cable cut or cable damage by any
agency including Government agencies, private agencies or private third party
agencies executing the digging work.
9. As Broadband growth helps bridge the digital divide, and increases GDP, it is
important to have a substantial increase in the funding of the infrastructure and to
use the current USOF optimally, for broadband proliferation.
10. Investment in FOC Co-deployment in Ducts/Concrete Conduits along the AHs
may be mandated to ensure backbone linkage to other ICT Applications in addition
to ITS along the Rural Hinterland, Standards & Specifications; Methods &
Procedures; Agreements & Protocols; Costing & Financing Allocation & Options and
Technologies to be used for meeting different Requirements in the Areas and
Regions within the Country and for Cross-border. This will optimise investment and
provide seamless connection.
11. Central repository may created after deep review and based on authentic data of
experiences of countries, which adopted co-deployment strategy detailing policies,
regulations & processes followed, standards, techniques and technologies used.
Access to this data be linked on the UN ESCAP Website of ICT Division. This will
minimise mistakes in execution of FOC projects.
12. A comprehensive long-term master plan or roadmap for building FOC network and
its utilisation including the limited requirements of all Roads/Highways (ITS, PIS, Toll);
may be prepared to set the development from low level to high level of implementation
and subsequent utilisation. Public sector may initially be in charge of the co-
deployment and subsequently considerations may be given to private sector
Final Report
45 Highways
participation (PPP) to share the roles and responsibilities for efficient broadband
market growth.
13. Different level of technologies and standards may be considered for meeting region-
wide requirements of each country. It may be necessary to establish national
standard and Inter-Governmental Agreement in consideration of efficiency in the
long term.
14. There is a need for enunciating a National RoW Policy to ensure uniformity in costs
and processes. The policy may encompass the following actions:
- Clear RoW Rules may be notified in exercise of powers under relevant Act.
- Principles for restoration, repair and reinstatement charges as demanded by
local authority for underground telecom infrastructure be laid down, specifically
prohibiting other local charges/levies/ demands.
- Rentals/License Fee chargeable for use of RoW may be uniform across a district
and implement transparently for all entities by local authority.
- Procedure and reasonable time limit for approval may be stipulated.
- Mechanism for approval of the concerned entity for use of their electricity or
telegraph masts/poles/structures in a terrain, where underground conduit/duct is
not feasible, for erecting Aerial FOC infrastructure may be specified. Standard
processes and rules for laying overhead fibre may be laid down by the Central
Government that can be adopted by State Governments and State bodies.
- Fibre network of a TSP may be awarded a critical infrastructure status.
- Procedure and powers under an Act for dispute resolution by a local authority
may be laid down.
DRAFT Final Report
46 Railways
IV. Fibre Optic Cables Co-deployment along Railways
1. National Co-deployment Status, Governance & Institutional Issues:
With the advent of the first FOC Network in the 1980s, the Network has grown far and
wide in the Indian sub-continent on account of significant resources deployed by various
Entities for their FOC Networks in the Private as well as Public Sector, in most cases,
separately. FOC has been laid making use of the RoW of Railways mostly in HDPE pipes
directly buried in the ground at the depth ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 meters. FOC is generally
blown through (pulled in some cases) HDPE ducts/pipes. Horizontal Directional Drilling
(HDD) is done for Rail and Road Crossings. Galvanised Iron Pipe (GI) is used along with
HDPE pipes at all crossings and on bridges and culverts. Procedure for granting
permissions and levying charges for use of RoW has been driven by requirements of
commercial gains or public use with directions emerging from Government and
Regulatory Authority. Although, there is no National Plan for Co-deployment of FOC,
adequate capacity and capability exists in the Public and Private Sector Entities to get
associated in this Common Duct Strategy. Efforts of different Entities are summarised
below:
1. Indian Railways (IR): In 1983, Railway Reforms Committee (RRC) decided to
introduce FOC based communications in IR for enhancing level of safety & reliability
using a dedicated network, replacing the existing microwave communication
systems (60% of which had achieved end of life). In Dec, 1988, Indian Railways
commissioned the first link on the Churchgate - Virar section (Mumbai) of
Western Railway for Train Operations Management & Control purposes, comprising
of 60 Kms of FOC connecting 28 stations. Later the network was expanded in Central
India with the commissioning of 900 Kms of FOC network in 1991-92 on Durg -
Nagpur, Nagpur – Itarsi and Itarsi - Bhusaval sections and in South Eastern India
with the commissioning of 60 RKms of FOC network in Tatanagar – Chakradhrapur
section. Indian Railway’s own requirement of the capacity from the fibre network was
very low, hence it provided an opportunity to exploit the remaining capacity to
generate additional revenues. By the year 2000, Indian Railways were able to build
4500 RKms of FOC network in a decade. To exploit the surplus capacity and
increase the roll out of FOC along Railway tracks, it was decided to create a separate
entity, which will be responsible to market the surplus capacity and built the network
along the Railway’s RoW. In Railway Budget of 2000, announcement was made for
formation of a telecom corporation to build a Nation-wide Broadband Multimedia
Telecom Network. was formed as a PSU fully owned by Railways in Sept, 2000.
RailTel working under the framework of the first agreement with the Ministry of
Railways dated 21st Sept 2006 had acquired the status of one of the largest Neutral
Telecom Infrastructure Providers in India by increasing the network to 25000 Kms.
The company owns a pan-India fibre network directly buried or taken in High Density
Poly Ethylene (HDPE) pipes through its exclusive Right of Way (RoW) along the
Railway Tracks across 4,500 railway stations (including over 600 stations on long
haul and 3,800 stations on short haul). The FOC network has increased from about
DRAFT Final Report
47 Railways
4,500 km in 2000 to over 49,833 Kms as on March 2018 (Table 3). 25500 kms of
this route is provided with Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)
network.
Table 3
FOC Network Entities
Total Route Kms Provided
Future Plans Other Details
PSUs
RailTel 49833 4500 PoPs at Stations along the RoW of Railway (51247 on
IR)
Indian Railways (Other)
3822
Grand Total 53655 0
2. Policy & Plan: Initiatives of a few countries are brought out below:
1. Indian Railways (IR) has provided FOC on 53655 Kms out of the total route
length of 67,368 Kms and has plans for covering the remaining length as well.
On the Railway RoW, Concrete Utility Ducts have not been provided on IR and
the FOC is laid in HDPE pipes directly buried near the boundary. The utility duct
is not considered appropriate keeping in view the stability of the track against
likely blockade of water flow during rains or floods, possibility of
interference/encroachment and use as driving pathway for motorcycles and theft
in remote areas. Approach to track for movement of men, machinery and material
for work, during works and for disaster management is likely to be obstructed,
soil for the formation is excavated from burrows in the area near the edge of
RoW, land required for doubling to third/fourth lines doubling are issues to be
considered. The current policy of leasing out the space for commercial gains will
need reviewRailTel’s FOC network not only meets the telecommunication needs
of Indian Railways, but also provides multifarious services using the available
network & bandwidth, which includes Tower Co-location, Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) based Internet Protocol-Virtual Private Network (IP-VPN),
WiFi Hotspots and RailWire as a retail Broadband Service, Data Centre Services,
Next-Generation Network (NGN)-based Voice Carriage and Bandwidth Lease
Services to Internet Service Providers (ISP), Multiple System Operators,
Enterprises, Banks, Government Bodies and Academic Institutions. For IR,
through RailTel’s FOC network provides Inter-exchange Connectivity, Video-
conferencing (Tele-Presence) Services and Backbone for various Data Circuits
like Passenger Reservations System (PRS), Freight Operations Information
System (FOIS), various MIS Portals and for Mobile Radio (GSM-R).
DRAFT Final Report
48 Railways
2. Korea (RoK): Korean National Railroad (KNR) and Korea Electrical &
Telecommunications Corporation (KETC) signed the agreement on Co-
deployment of Trackside Fibre Optic Cables on 17th February 1986.
• Specific agreement for Gyeongbu Line (Seoul to Busan 445 Kms) for
installation of FOC by KNR, KETC, and Dacom Corporation was signed later.
The agreement was revised on 30th December 2005, to associate Korea Rail
Network Authority (KRNA), Korea Railroad Corporation (Korail) and Korea
Telecom (KT), organisations, who succeeded the entities associated in the
previous agreements. Prior to this agreement, KNR was using exclusive
copper wires and coaxial cables (Approved by the Government for use in
Railway Operations) for Railway audio and data signal transmissions. This
FOC Network has been in use since 30th March 1989. Duct has 1 outer tube
(100 mm), 3 inner tubes (28 mm) with FOC of 36 core and 72 – 84 core. 6
Cores are owned by the Government.
(Picture 9 - KNR Telecom Network)
• Another agreement was signed with Dacom Corporation in July 1992, which
provides for FOC Co-deployment on 22 Railway Lines other than Gyeongbu
Line measuring 1,848 Kms. The agreement underwent revisions to include
additional 580 Kms FOC along Gyeongjeon, Jeolla and Donghae Lines.
Another tripartite agreement with Dreamline provides for FOC Co-deployment
on 5 lines totalling 120.8 Kms (Bundang Line 36.1 Kms, Gwacheon Line 22.2
Kms, Ilsan Line 19.2 Kms, Gyeongwon Line 13 Kms Gyooe Line 30.3 Kms).
DRAFT Final Report
49 Railways
KRNA, Korail and Dreamline are parties to the agreement. KRNA arranges
facilities and FOC is laid by Dreamline. Similar separate agreements were
signed with Onse Telecom Corporation and SK Telecom Corporation along
along with KRNA and Korail with terms and conditions for providing
backup/bypass network for emergencies and for improving the reliability.
• In the first Co-deployment, FOCs were laid along Gyeongbu Line’s 420.6-km
Anyang-Busan section in ducts (1 pipe with outer diameter of 100 mm and 3
pipes with inner diameter of 28 mm) installed at least 3 meters from the track
center and at least 1.2 meters below the surface. Two 36 core FOCs (Normal
and Backup), one in each of the two pipes out of the three inner pipes, leaving
one inner pipe as spare. KETC used and maintained 30 of the 36 cores for its
commercial services paying Korean National Railroad maintenance fees. The
remaining 6 cores were meant for the Government to be used for Control,
Operation and Maintenance by Korean National Railroad.
• Railway Signalling and Communications have advanced after co-
deployment of trackside FOCs pursuant to the above agreement. Apart from
development of control and operation of Power for Traction (SCADA),
Centralised Traffic Control (CTC), Train Radio System (TRS) and Surveillance
(CCTV), which were required to meet requirements of 350 kmph high speed
trains and 250 kmph for conventional trains, existing Local and Wide Area
Network (LAN/WAN), Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) Systems and Train
Information Display (TID) Systems also evolved using faster transmissions of
large voice, data and video signals. Co-deployment of FOC on Railways has
initiated major developments used for Safe, Reliable and efficient operations.
• Status of FOC: Co-deployment of Railway Trackside FOC Network in the
Republic of Korea (RoK) continues to be expanded under the Mid/Long Term
Railway Optical Network Plan formulated and implemented by KRNA. Till 30th
June FOCs have been laid on 3 High Speed Rails (HSRs) spread over a length
of 824.2 Kms and 86 Conventional Rails linked to the HSRs measuring 3,078
Kms, (Total - 3,902.4 Kms). FOC Network Configuration Diagram is shown in
the Figure.
3. Russian Federation: TransTeleCom (TTK) operates and maintains a FOC
network of more than 76,000 kms having a capacity of more than 3.4 TBps and
has more than 1,000 access points in all densely populated regions of the
country, where the main production resources are concentrated, connecting the
Eastern and Western borders of the Russian Federation.
4. State Railway of Thailand (SRT): SRT covers 55 provinces with the Railway
network spread over 4,127 Kms with standard gauge (1.435 meter) and narrow
gauge (1.000 meter) (Picture 10).
DRAFT Final Report
50 Railways
• Out of the four main lines, Northern Line terminates in Chiang Mai,
Northeastern Line terminates at Ubon Ratchathani and Laos border in Nong
Khai Province; Eastern Line terminates at Cambodian border in Sa Kaeo
Province, and Southern Line terminates at the Malaysian border in Songkhla
and Narathiwat Provinces. SRT owns and maintains about 7,500 telegraph
poles along rail network on which FOCs are installed.
• Status of FOC: SRT along with TOT Public Company (TOT) has experience in
Co-deployment/Co-habitation of FOC along Railways under the Com-link
Project commencing almost 20 years back. Star Configuration has been
adopted for the FOC Network. The
collaboration was terminated on March
31, 2011. FOC was laid along the Railway
Route within the RoW. Presently, 4,300
Kms FOC is available along the Telegraph
Poles.
• To route FOCs on Railway, TSPs have to
acquire type three license from the
National Broadcasting and
Telecommunication Commission (NBTC)
and negotiate rent for use of SRT’s
Telegraph poles. SRT had authorized five
entities to use the right of way for their
FOCs. These are Jointed SRT, Com-link
and TOT PCL (This project is terminated);
Royal Thai Air Force; Interlink
Communication PCL (2012); ALT
Telecom PCL (2016) and United
Information Highway Co. Ltd. (UIH).
Currently, there are about 11 active TSPs
on FOC networks.
(Picture 10 - SRT Network)
• Thailand - National Plan and Policy - National policy and plans for FOC are
finalised by Ministry of Transport (MOT) to be deployed along highway, railway,
and aeronautical, maritime transportation and by Ministry of Digital Economy
and Social (MDES) for the national broadband network. presently, the project
still under consideration of committee of digital infrastructure. SRT and TOT
collaborate on the double track project. Multiple public-sector entities are
involved in the co-deployment project likeTOT Public Company (TOT), CAT
Telecom Public Company Limited (CAT), and ALT TELECOM Public Company
Limited (ALT)
DRAFT Final Report
51 Railways
3. Case Studies - India: It is important to understand the practices followed by
other countries and Infrastructure players in India, so as to arrive at next steps and
recommendations to facilitate ease of execution and efficiency in broadband rollouts.
Although, quite a few cases were reported on provision of Utility Ducts in dense
Urban area, not many were noticed along the Highways/Railways. some details are
appended below:
1. Indian Railway: IR have laid 53,655 Kms of FOC till May 2018 along its RoW
of Railway Tracks. As per policy, FOC shall be provided along its complete
Railway Track of 67,368 Route Kms. Zonal Railways have planned for provision
of FOC in remaining 13,713 Route KM and have the desired capacity and
capability to undertake this project. In FY 2018-19, to ensure complete coverage,
FOC work has been sanctioned in the remaining sections. In addition to this, all
New Railway Line Sections are commissioned along with FOC by Zonal
Railways as matter of policy. Initial installation cost is borne by Zonal Railways.
Substantial portion of the FOC Network is taken over by RailTel, a Mini Ratna
PSU fully owned by the Ministry of Railway, for its Maintenance, Upgradation
and Commercial Usage. Detailed Instructions have been issued regarding laying of
FOC along Railway Tracks. To reduce damage during construction activities, FOC has
been laid near outer boundary of Railway Land. However, this has increased the
possibility of its damage by digging activities by outsiders near Railway Land.
2. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd (DFCCIL): Eastern
(EDFC- Picture 11) and Western (WDFC - Picture 12) Dedicated Freight Rail
Corridors are under construction by DFCCIL under the Dedicated Freight
Corridor Project funded by World Bank and JICA respectively.
(Picture 11 - EDFC Network)
Length of the Electrified Track of EDFC is 1856 kms (1409 kms double line between
Dankuni to Khurja/Dadri via Sonnagar, Mughalsarai and Bhaupur and single line
between Khurja and Ludhiana) and that of WDFC is 1503 kms double line spanning
DRAFT Final Report
52 Railways
from Dadri via Rewari to JNPT, Mumbai. On both the Railway Corridors, 24 + 48
Fibre FOC in HDPE pipes has been planned on both sides of the Track and are Co-
deployed. FOC Network shall fully meet all the voice, data and media communication
requirements for Safe and Reliable Train Operations, Control and Supervision. The
length of these Railway Lines is and respectively.
(Picture 12 - WDFC Network)
2. Governance & Institutional Aspect:
• India: On IR, only the Zonal Railways and RailTel are authorised to lay FOC and
make use of it. RailTel was formed as Railway’s PSU in Sept, 2000 with an
authorized capital of INR 10 Billion and a mandate to modernize Railways
communication network and to significantly contribute to the realization of goals and
objectives of the National Telecom Policy 1999. RailTel working under the framework
of the first agreement with the Ministry of Railways dated 21st Sept 2006 has
acquired the status of one of the largest Neutral Telecom Infrastructure Providers in
India by increasing the network to 49800 kms and the only one making use of the
Railways RoW. RailTel also makes financial investments on FOC network for
commercial purposes by offering various services and applications in this intensively
competitive market of Mobile Communication and Internet for higher Data and
Speed. Under the BharatNet initiative of BBNL, RailTel has been entrusted with the
task of connecting FOC to 36,000 gram panchayats.
• Korea (RoK): Korean National Railroad (KNR) and Korea Electrical &
Telecommunications Corporation (KETC) signed an agreement on co-deployment
of trackside FOCs on 17th February 1986. Specific agreement for Gyeongbu Line
(Seoul to Busan 445 Kms) for installation of FOC by KNR, KETC, and Dacom
DRAFT Final Report
53 Railways
Corporation was signed later. The agreement was revised on 30th December 2005,
to associate Korea Rail Network Authority (KRNA), Korea Railroad Corporation
(Korail) and Korea Telecom (KT), organisations, who succeeded the entities
associated in the previous agreements.
• Russia: FOC Network along Railroads: TTK is one of the five leading Telecom
operators in Russia, whose main partner is JSC Russian Railways, which owns 99.9
shares of the company. It’'s subscriber base is 1.9 million users.
3. Legal & Regulatory Framework: Enabling Rules, Acts, Laws and Regulations
for allowing RoW to Railways; permitting use of RoW for deployment, Operations &
Maintenance of Telecom Cables/Lines are extracted below:
1. Indian Railway Act 1989 - Para 11. Power of railway administration to execute
all necessary works - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, but subject to the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any
law for the acquisition of land for a public purpose or for the companies, and subject
also, in the case of a non-government railway, to the provisions of any contract
between the Non-Government railway and the Central Government, a railway
administration may, for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a railway - (a)
make a construct in or upon, across, under or over any lands, or any street, hills,
valleys, roads, railway, tramways, or any rivers, canals, brooks, streams or other
waters, or any drains, water pipes, gas pipes, oil-pipes, sewers, electric supply lines,
or telegraph lines, such temporary or permanent inclined - planes, bridges, tunnels,
culverts, embankments, aqueducts, roads, lines of railways, passages, conduits,
drains, piers, cutting and fences, in-take wells, tube wells, dams, river training and
protection works as it thinks proper; and para 11 (f) erect, operate, maintain or repair
any telegraph and telephone lines in connection with the working of the railway;(g)
erect, operate, maintain or repair any electric traction equipment, power supply and
distribution installation in connection with the working of the railway; and
2. Indian Telegraph Act 1885 with Amendments Jan 2004, 2016 and 2017
4. Exclusive privilege in respect of telegraphs, and power to grant licenses. (1)
Within India, the Central Government shall have exclusive privilege of establishing,
maintaining and working telegraphs: Provided that the Central Government may
grant a License, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it
thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of
India.
10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and
posts.—The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a
telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable
property: Provided that— (a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers
conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or
maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained;
DRAFT Final Report
54 Railways
(b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only
in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority
places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those
powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of
any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority
shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in
respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full
compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason
of the exercise of those powers.
Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 - The Act stipulates the Rules and
procedures for Establishment and Maintenance of Underground & Overground
TELEGRAPH INFRASTRUCTURE along with Dispute Resolution Provisions.
3. Korea (RoK) - Regulations on Co-deployment Agreements: Republic of Korea’s
regulations on trackside co-deployment agreements, design, supervision,
construction, maintenance and operation are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Agreements • Framework Act on National Informatization, its enforcement
decree and enforcement rule
• Telecommunications Business Act, its enforcement decree
Design/
Supervision
• Information and Communications Business Act, its enforce
decree
• Engineering Industry Promotion Act, its enforcement decree and
enforcement rule
• Regulations on Construction and Consultancy Management
• Standards on Qualification of Technical Services
• Detail Standards on Capabilities Assessment of Electrical
Service Providers
Construction • Electric Utility Act, its enforcement decree and enforcement rule
• Framework Act on Telecommunications, its enforcement decree
• Telecommunications Business Act, its enforcement decree
• Telecommunications Construction Business Act, its enforcement
decree
• Regulations on Technical Standards of Broadcasting and
Communications Facilities
• Regulations on Railroad Construction
• Regulations on Construction and Consultancy Management
• Qualification Standards of Facilities Construction for Public
Procurement
DRAFT Final Report
55 Railways
Maintenance • Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development, its
enforcement decree and enforce rule
• Regulations on Maintenance of Electrical Facilities
• Detail Regulations on Maintenance of Information and
Communications Facilities
Safety • Railroad Safety Act, its enforcement decree and enforcement
rule
Quality
assurance
• Regulations on Designation and Management of Information and
Communications Equipment Testing Agencies
• Regulations on Certification of Information and Communication
Equipment
• Information and Communications Facilities Operations Guideline
• Regulations on Management of Goods
Outsourced
facilities
• Guidelines on Management of Outsourced Communications
Facilities
4. Thailand Law and Regulation - For local and national issues of RoW are governed
by the royal ordinance and government gazette giving legal coverage for
authorization in Highway or State Railway. The TSPs, like ALT need a license to
operate business from the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication
Commission (NBTC).
4. Financial Basis & Cost Sharing amongst Entities: ODetails in this regard are
appended below:
1. On Indian Railways, interaction indicates that Financing of FOC Projects, which are
executed by the Zonal Railways and RailTel, is largely driven by internal
communication requirements for Monitoring & Control and Operations & Maintenance
and Strategy for generating Revenue from the Surplus Capacity. RailTel also makes
Financial Investments on FOC Network for offering services on Mobile
Communication and Internet with higher Data and Speed. No Cost Sharing with
other Public and Private Entities has taken place due to varying requirements, RoW
being limited only to IR, geographically different sectors of projects (Rail or Road or
Gas/Oil Pipe Line or PowerTransmission Line), Leasing Policy on Railways and
intense competition, although, sharing of Network and Bandwidth is done to provide
the required QoS and meet the SLA requirements based on Commercial Agreements.
PSEs (BSNL, PGCIL and RailTel) have come together for the BharatNet Project
(NOFN) as the same has been funded through Public Funds (USOF) as per the
Telegraph Act.
2. Korea (RoK) Experience: Initial cost of FOC Co-deployment was shared between
Korean National Railroad and Korea Telecom as shown in the table 5 below. Korea
DRAFT Final Report
56 Railways
Telecom was later repaid KRW 7,162 million of this cost (Repaid over a 15-year
period from 1989 to 2003 with payment of KRW 239 million made twice a year). Rail
infrastructure user fees to be paid to KRNA for use of infrastructure assets and to
Korail for operation of assets.
Table 5
Korean National Railroad Korea Telecom Total
8,570 70,053 78,623
Units in Million Korean Won (KRW)
5. Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Models - Railways: Operations and
Maintenance of all the FOC Networks is generally under the control of the Entity owning
the Network and is offering Services to the TSPs, ISPs and MSOs. Feedback received
in this regard is given below:
1. Indian Railways: O&M of the Railway’s National Long Distance FOC Network is
assigned to RailTel, a fully owned PSE of Indian Railways. The cost of the Services
given to Indian Railways is recovered as per directives of the Telecom Directorate of
the Railway Board for proportionate Fibre (2 Pairs) Maintenance Charges per Km per
Month for each Pair of Fibre (INR 132 for 2016-17) and for STM4 Bandwidth at the
rate of Rs 7219 per Km per Annum.(Rly Board Policy Letters). RailTel bears the Cost
of Operations and Maintenance of the FOC Network including any License Fee/Lease
Rental for use of the Duct or the RoW.
2. Korea (RoK): As per the agreement between KRNA and Korail, KRNA is responsible
for construction and relocation of FOC along Railways under Construction and Korail
is responsible for construction and relocation of along Operating Railways.
Operations of the FOC Network is under Korail’s scope. Korail is responsible for
maintenance of ducts/pipes and Korea Telecom for the FOCs. Rail infrastructure user
fees to be paid to KRNA for infrastructure assets and to Korail for operation assets.
3. Thailand: Initial installation cost of FOC is not shared amongst entities and it varies
depending upon the scope of work. Maintenance cost varies depending upon the
scope of work and QoS required and is not shared..
6. Benefits & Opportunities - Railways:
1. FOC co-deployment along the RoW of Railway track provides for a reliable media for
basic Signalling, Train Control and Management of services for safe and efficient
operations and an opportunity by deploying numerous ICT applications, thereby
creating a win-win situation for all associated entities.
2. Railway agencies gain financial benefits by sharing the spare capacities in concrete
conduits or ducts/pipes, racks/shelves, dark fibre and bandwidth with TSPs under a
DRAFT Final Report
57 Railways
specific agreement through lease charges/license/usage fee and maintenance cost of
the network. Additional and diversified revenue earnings accrue to Railway from
lease of unused bandwidth.
3. TSPs get opportunities to earn high profits with minimum investments by building
the fibre network without the need of land ownership saving project costs over the
life cycle minimising multiple civil works and repairs at the time of laying, crossing and
connecting and maintaining FOC.
4. This enables them to provide telecom services in lesser time frame in remote rural
areas, thus increasing their market share and generating new demands. FOC network
can be expanded quickly based on “Single Installation, Multiple Use” or “Dig Once,
Use Many Times” concept. This quick expansion of network and applications brings
along with it many new jobs promoting and strengthening sustainable development
policies that bring greater economic and social benefits.
5. For civil works to start smoothly, RoW has to be secured and made free from
obstructions. Concrete conduits help in demarcating the RoW and preventing
encroachments. Existing utilities, like overhead telecom cables and power
transmission lines, water and gas pipes, coming in the way of civil works get diverted
into these conduits. HDPE pipes laid in the RoW reduce possibility of damage on
account of construction and farming activities. This minimises disturbance to train
traffic during subsequent works and regular maintenance.
6. Co-deployment provides a robust network for highly reliable and efficient services for
ICT in rail transport. Sharing fibre or bandwidth provides protection circuit through the
backup network to enable uninterrupted communications.
7. Condition monitoring for predictive maintenance can be deployed on fixed railway
assets and rolling stock using sensors to warn of a developing fault.
8. Passenger Information Displays, Interactive Voice Response Systems (IVRS) and
Internet Kiosks at stations for customer satisfaction need a reliable FOC network.
9. Intelligent Video Surveillance at stations, in yards/level crossings using Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) with video analytics improves security. CCTVs can be
installed in critical areas along railway lines, in electrical and communication facilities
in order to reduce breakdown of train services, generating additional indirect economic
benefits from the application of ICT.
7. Constraints & Challenges - Railways: Optical Fibre is the globally preferred
technology for extending high-speed broadband to end users. However, multiple
challenges related to RoW, lack of standards, unavailability of mapping of data related
to fibre are being faced:
1. There are difficulties in obtaining permissions for defining the FOC route along the
formation, bridges and culverts; and track crossing locations from Civil Engineering
Department, which cause uncertainty and delays in the rollout of planned network.
2. Concrete Utility Ducts have not been provided and FOC is laid in HDPE pipes
directly buried near the boundary of RoW. Concrete utility duct apart from the high
cost is not considered keeping in view the stability of the track against likely blockade
of water flow during floods, possibility of interference/encroachment and use as
DRAFT Final Report
58 Railways
driving pathway for motorcycles and theft in remote areas. Approach to track for
movement of men, machinery and material for work, during works and for disaster
management is likely to be obstructed, soil required for the formation is excavated
from burrows in the area within the RoW and land required for doubling to third/fourth
lines are issues raised. The current policy of leasing out the space for commercial
gains needs a review.
3. Railway Infrastructure entities are concerned about the high cost of the Concrete
Utility Duct/Conduit and corresponding increase in the unit cost of the Railway Line.
Cost of provision of the Concrete Utility Ducts or Conduits close to the extreme edge
of the Right of Way (RoW), which is between 50000 to 60000 USD per km per duct
depending on the local conditions & terrain, is not acceptable. Outsourcing/Leasing
Out of Ducts requires extensive efforts.
4. Private TSPs are not keen to provide Services to the population in rural areas near
Railway Track/Stations as they need to invest in their own FOC Network, where RoW
permission is restricted. The situation is even worse in areas having limited RoW
space. Sharing of Infrastructure (Conduit, Duct, Fibre & Bandwidth) under a
Common Government Policy would optimise Capex for the Country.Incomplete
documentation and sharing of Location Details of FOC Network deployed along
the RoW of Railways is leading to frequent damage to FOC Network due to civil
works for construction for Rail Lines, Yard changes and due to farming.
5. Extensive damage & disruption to FOC near Railway line takes place during natural
calamities (Landslides) and accidents (Bridge Collapse), when the Communication
Services are needed the most. Restoration activities are extremely difficult to perform
due to waterlogging (Picture 13). In many regions, FOCs are laid in underground
HDPE pipes. This method presents difficulties on account of damage caused by
excavation works, which may interrupt train operations, spoiling of ballast during
excavation for pipe laying, reduction of drainage area, loss of roadbeds for ballast
restoration, difficulty in maintenance and long time required for post-accident
recovery. Recent methods of laying cables in concrete troughs, utility conduits or
cable trays may be considered.
Picture 13
Damage & Flooding of Railway and FOC/Ducts
DRAFT Final Report
59 Railways
Patharkhandi Rail Bridge on Dhramanagar - Silchar Section - FOC Disrupted Area Flooded
FOC Damage in Lumding - Silchar - Karimganj Rail Section due to Rains, Storm, Land Slides
Kalkali - Churaibari - FOC Route and Rail Track Flooded
Road Over Rail Bridge Collapse Damages FOC Network
6. Non availability of Standards & Policy Directives for FOC on RoW acceptable to
Entities of all types of utilities ranging from Highway & Roads to Railways, Bridges &
Canals, Power, Gas, Water and Sewage and Buildings and Other Structures.
7. Safety and Security of FOC and the Manpower inside the Concrete Utility Duct and
Man Holes is an area of Concern.
8. Challenges and constraints of co-deployment of FOCs along railway routes are
difficulties in co-ordination with entities, lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy
and lack of awareness.
8. Conclusions & Inferences - Railways:
1. Railways have allowed use of RoW generally to their own PSUs (RailTel in India)
and not to other TSP. RailTel has exclusive right to make use of the RoW. TSPs are,
however, given permission to cross the Railway Track with one time charge based
on local land rates and in case of Universal Services without any charge.
2. Low per capita income requires these services to be made affordable in the Rural
sector and therefore many of the Private Service Providers have not ventured into
DRAFT Final Report
60 Railways
such areas. FOC Network on Railways can be effectively used for Rural Broadband
using low cost Technologies forAccess Network and APs.
3. Each entity has set unit’s own FOC Network Infrastructure laid on different routes
and paths by repeatedly digging along the RoW without any sharing of space or pipe
or duct.
4. For provision of Utility Ducts or Conduits close to the extreme edge of the Right of
Way (RoW) presently there is a Policy only in a few countries. Consultations &
Interactive Sessions are being held with concerned ministries.
5. Penetration of Telecom, WiFi and ICT Services in the Rural hinterland in the Country
is substantially low on account of inadequate Long Haul FOC backbone,
unorganised Access Network to the end user, inadequate Laptop Computers/Smart
Phones and absence of Content in the Local Language.
DRAFT Final Report
61 Railways
9. Recommendations - Co-deployment on Railways:
1. RoW Policies are critical for all entities and much needs to be done to strengthen
them to ensure more transparency, faster deployment and ease of doing business for
the industry. It is important that RoW for broadband infrastructure build-outs are
seamless and time-bound. Uniform RoW Policy across all departments be issued
based on rationalised License Fee/Lease Charges/Rental for the Common Utility
Duct/Pipe/Cable by the Central Government/Authority and implemented at Local
levels without any arbitrary interpretation.
2. Mechanism for Single Window Clearance, Approvals, Permits in defined time limit
for Construction of the Utility Duct by an Authority comprising members from all
stakeholders be put in place. Permission for FOC/Conduit Laying, Leasing of Space
in the Conduits, Costs for Way Leave, Installation, Repair & Maintenance, Location
and Layout Designs be stipulated by a Central Authority comprising of Members
from all units & stakeholders. Single-window clearance is an imperative for all RoW
proposals at the level of the States and in the Central Government. All such
clearances have to be time-bound so that TSPs and infrastructure providers can
move rapidly to project execution. Ideally, single-window clearance may be
administered online with a defined turnaround time. The reasons for denial of RoW
permission may be recorded in writing.
3. Open transparent lease of space in the Utility Duct/Pipe/Cable to any FOC Network
Operator/Service Provider with defined charges per km per year based on the
location and region. The only charges levied may be towards restoration or
reinstatement which may be directly linked to restoring the surroundings to their
original state. The RoW rates may therefore be standardized and fixed and uniform
procedures must be brought into practice for all agencies.
4. “Dig or Duct Only Once,” “Integrate the Planning of Utilities” and “Collaborate to
Share the Infrastructure” be the guiding principles for Transport Infrastructure and
ICT Entities.
5. Encourage Utility Corridors: For establishment of Utility Corridors,
Highway/Railway Units, State Road Units may be asked to provide ducting along all
new or upgradation road projects. Provision of Utility Ducts or Conduits close to
the extreme edge of the Right of Way (RoW) to be mandated by the Ministries
responsible for Railways, Road Transport and Highways at the time of construction
or expansion of Highways with four and six lanes. Specific standards must be laid
down by a Central Authority for adoption by NHAI and other authorities responsible
for State Highways, Railways, Natural Gas Pipe Lines, Water, Sewage and Electricity
Transmission and Private Units. These must be enforced with penalties for non-
compliance. Policy may be laid down to secure fibre network by defining guidelines
such as ‘call before you dig’ infrastructure sectors such as road construction
authorities/agencies like NHAI/SH/PP Projects must include, in their construction
design policy, a provision for a utility duct to enable laying of FOC for all new
DRAFT Final Report
62 Railways
infrastructure and also adopt similar measures in existing projects in a “Dig Only
Once” policy approach.
6. All ducts along with FOC POPs/POIs may be GIS mapped and shared on the Web
Site of the Telecom Duct Authority for optimised installation, reliable operations &
maintenance. Status of space, pipe & fibre availability and hardware for bandwidth
sharing can be displayed. RoW agencies/authorities may mark the area for laying
of underground cables at a significant distance from roads considering expansion
plans over the next 10 years to protect investment in fibre infrastructure and avoid
service disruption during expansions.
7. Enforceable administrative and legal provisions (even contractual) need to be put in
place for payment of compensation in case of cable cut or cable damage by any
agency including Government agencies, private agencies or private third party
agencies executing the digging work.
DRAFT Final Report
63 Transmission, Telegraph & Pipe Lines
V. FOC on Power Transmission, Gas Pipe Lines & Telegraph Posts
1. Status, Institutional & Regulatory Mechanism: Fibre Optic Cables have also
been deployed by entities on Power Transmission & Gas Pipe Lines and even on
Telegraph Posts in a few cases. Brief details of the infrastructure deployed are appended
below;
1. India - Power Transmission Lines: Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
(PGCIL), a navratna state owned enterprise, is responsible for managing country’s
electric power transmission network and is having pan-India overhead fibre on its
high voltage transmission line network. PGCIL has leveraged its transmission
infrastructure to provide telecommunication services for internal use and asset
monitoring and is also in the business of point-to-point bandwidth leasing.
1. PGCIL currently has about 48,500 kms of FOC network across the country. The
company has used Optic Ground Wire (OPGW) technology to roll out its fibre
network on a live-line environment on the existing transmission lines and uses
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) based data transmission equipment for
building backbone communication systems. Challenges of limited resources,
small number of indigenous suppliers of OPGW hardware/accessories and
inadequate testing facilities exist. The utility plans to use OPGW as earth wire in
all upcoming transmission lines of 132 kV and above.
2. PGCIL is also part of the BharatNet project and has been specifically entrusted
with the task of developing and maintaining the project by BBNL in Telangana,
Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Odisha, covering about 35,791 GPs on
deposit work basis. The work is to be carried out in about 89 districts covering
1769 blocks across these four states. The approx. budgetary cost for the same
is INR 24.34 Billion.
2. India - Oil and Gas Pipe Lines: GAILTEL is the telecom and telemetry services arm
of Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL), the largest state-owned natural gas
processing and distribution company in India. The utility provides communication
services for GAIL’s pipeline business and operate the latter’s Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
applications. GAILTEL has also been commercially leasing its FOC network to
telecom operators across India, and provides tower space and co-location facilities
and point-to-point leased line bandwidth services. The company’s key clients include
Vodafone India, Bharti Airtel, Tikona, PGCIL and RailTel.
1. GAILTEL had an FOC network of around 12,000 km (2016) along GAIL’s cross-
country pipelines (around 7,200 km) and state/national highway routes (around
4,800 km). The network connects 150 cities in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
Kerala and Delhi NCR. Interaction with GAILTEL authorities indicates that FOC
routes along roads were abandoned due to road expansion work as the traffic
was getting adversely affected causing loss of Revenue due to damage to FOC.
DRAFT Final Report
64 Transmission, Telegraph & Pipe Lines
2. GAILTEL has envisioned an addition of about 5,200 km of FOC network in the
next five years across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Gujarat,
Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and
Karnataka. Further, the company is preparing to lay 48-fibre cables along some
of GAIL’s new pipelines to cater to captive and business requirements. GAIL is
also exploring a partnership with service providers for sharing fibre and ducts on
a long-term basis.
3. Challenges in operating its FOC network include low profit margins, lack of policy
guidelines on leasing of dark fibre, extensive damage to fibre cables due to road
construction, the absence of an integrated nodal Entity to monitor the execution
activities of various utilities and the absence of a utility corridor for trunk and last
mile connectivity.
3. Thailand - Overhead Telegraph Lines: SRT owns
and maintains approximately 7,500 telegraph poles
along total railway network.
1. All FOCs are installed on the existing telegraph
poles (Picture 14). In order to route fiber-optic
cables on telegraph poles, operator have to
acquire type three license from NBTC.
2. On SRT, Telecommunication Systems provide
communication between Train/Railway Stations
for Train Control, Management and Supervision
along with many other activities like Ticketing
Systems etc. Communication network
established through the Open Wire Pole Route
(OWPR) on Telegraph poles is in use since 30
years spread over 4300 kms. Being above the
ground, the network has working problems on
account of interference, theft, and weather
disturbances, which leads to non-receipt of
notification from Train Stations adversely
affecting Train Control Diagram/Chart.
(Picture 14 - FOC on Telegraph Post)
2. Legal & Regulatory Framework: Enabling Rules, Acts, Laws and Regulations
for allowing RoW to Railways and Highways; permitting use of RoW for deployment,
Operations & Maintenance of Telecom Cables/Lines are extracted below:
1. Indian Easement Act 1882 with Amendments - Stipulates the legal provisions for
allowing access to Public Utility and Right of Way to Entities based on license fee or
lease rental.
2. Gazette issued as Rules regarding Right of Way. The appropriate authority shall
exercise the powers under these rules on an application for establishment and
maintenance of underground or overground telegraph infrastructure by any licensee
DRAFT Final Report
65 Transmission, Telegraph & Pipe Lines
on whom the powers of the telegraph authority have been conferred by notification
under section 19B of the Act, subject to any conditions and restrictions as may be
imposed in such notification.
(http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/ROW_2016.pdf?download=1)
3. Financial Basis & Cost Sharing amongst Entities: In India, so far, the
experience is largely fragmented on account of intense competition.
1. Interaction indicates that financing of FOC Projects, which are executed by these
entities, private as well as public, is largely driven by their internal communication
requirements for monitoring & control and operations & maintenance systems and to
some extent strategy for generating additional revenue from the surplus capacity.
2. Initial installation cost sharing amongst entities has not practically taken off due to
geographically different routes, intense competition, although, sharing of network and
bandwidth is done to provide the required QoS and to meet the SLA requirements.
3. Cost of land lease/rental, license fee for use of RoW and minimising disturbance to
land used, is borne by the entities based on local circle rates and mutual agreements,
paid in advance for the period for which the space is required.
4. PSEs (BSNL, PGCIL and RailTel) have come together for the BharatNet Project
(NOFN) as the same has been funded through Public Funds (USOF) as per the
Telegraph Act.
5. Operation and Maintenance of all the FOC Networks is under the control of the entity
owning the network and is offering services, if any, to the TSPs, ISPs and MSOs.
4. Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Models - Transmission/Pipe Lines:
1. India: Operations and maintenance of FOC deployed by the power transmission and
gas pipe lines is managed by the entities either in-house or through out-sourced
agencies bearing the costs including any license fee or lease rental for use of
duct/conduit or RoW. Being a critical asset with substantial focus on safety of
equipment and personnel, O&M has not been reported to be shared by these
entitities.
2. Co-deployment along transmission lines and gas pipes is common and the CapEx is
fully borne by the entitiy.
5. Benefits & Opportunities:
1. Asset condition monitoring, operations control and internal telecommunication
service needs are effectively handled.
2. FOC laid along this infrastructure, which is on a secured route, reduces the possibility
of damage on account of interference.
3. Save significant Costs over the Life Cycle minimising multiple civil works and repairs
at the time of Laying, Crossing and Connecting and Maintaining FOC.
4. Minimize blockade/disturbance to Train or Road Traffic during Work and or
Maintenance.
5. ICT Services along the this infrastructure and the adjacent rural hinterland can be
deployed at lower costs.
DRAFT Final Report
66 Transmission, Telegraph & Pipe Lines
6. Security monitoring using Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Video Analytics
including disaster recovery is feasible.
6. Constraints & Challenges: Optical Fibre is the globally preferred technology for
extending high-speed broadband to end users. This technology is used in backbone and
backhaul networks to support fixed and wireless broadband and is going through a
steady growth across the world in last-mile connectivity as well. However, multiple
challenges related to location of the infrastructure in remote areas, difficulties in
maintaining the fibre network, lack of standards, unavailability of mapping of data related
to fibre, etc. impede the growth as explained below:
1. There are difficulties for acquiring land or obtaining permission for land use from land
authorities and private land owners, state local bodies, other utility authorities, as well
as forest & wildlife departments, which cause uncertainty and delays in the rollout of
planned infrastructure.
2. More and more entities are required for providing broadband services and need FOC
Network in the same area/route. Sharing of infrastructure (Fibre & Bandwidth)
under a unified policy would optimise Capex.
3. Lack of uniform and transparent pricing policy for lease rental or license fee across
the country, discretion in interpreting and implementing it and variations from place
to place create hindrance in infrastructure rollout.
4. Inadequate documentation and sharing of location details of transmission and
pipe lines having embedded FOC. This enables FOC Network construction or
expansion.
5. Non availability of standards & policy directives for FOC, which are acceptable to
entities of all types of utilities including power, gas, water and sewage pipe lines.
6. Transmission and gas pipe line infrastructure entities are not very convinced
about the utility and economic benefits, which can accrue to themfor making use of
spare fibre and bandwidth capacity.
7. Extensive damage & disruption to FOC network takes place during natural
calamities (storms, heavy rains & landslides) and accidents (overhead transmission
line collapse or gas pipe line damage), when the communication is needed the most.
Snapping of aerial wires and cables can be disastrous. Apprehensions covered in
Annexure 8.
7. Conclusions & Inferences:
1. Digital penetration in the rural hinterland is low on account of inadequate long haul
FOC backbone connectivity and unorganised access network to the end user.
2. Low per capita income requires these services to be made affordable in the rural
sector and therefore private service providers have not ventured into such areas.
3. Transmission and gas pipe line entities have allowed very limited use of the spare
capacity of their fibre infrastructure by PSUs and TSPs. More can be achieved to
narrow the digital divide.
4. Each entity has set it’s own FOC network infrastructure laid on different routes and
paths without sharing of spare fibres, bandwidth and space, where feasible.
DRAFT Final Report
67 Transmission, Telegraph & Pipe Lines
5. For an integrated and unified approach policy does not exist in many countries.
Consultations & interactive sessions are being held with concerned ministries.
8. Recommendations for Transmission, Telegraph and Pipe Lines:
1. Cables on telegraph posts may be avoided as they are prone to interference and
thefts and can be hazardous in case of their snapping for any reason, specialy along
and crossing the roads (Annexure 8).
2. RoW & land acquisition policies are critical for all entities and may be strengthened
to ensure more transparency, faster seamless deployment and ease of doing
business.
3. Uniform policy across all departments be issued based on rationalised
compensation and license fee/lease rental for land acquisition and use by a Central
Authority and implemented at local levels without any arbitrary interpretation.
4. Mechanism for Single Window clearance, approvals and permits in defined time
limit may be put in place for laying pipes, leasing of land for transmission towers,
costs for way leave, repairs & maintenance charges may be stipulated by a Central
Authority comprising of Members from all units & stakeholders. Single-window
clearance may be administered online with a defined turnaround time giving reasons
in case of denial.
5. “Integrate the planning of utilities” and “Collaborate to share the infrastructure” be the
guiding principles for all entities.
6. All utilities and ducts along with FOC of all entities may be GIS mapped and shared
across the stakeholders for optimised installation, reliable operations & maintenance
on the Web Site of the Common Authority. Status of space, pipe & fibre availability
and hardware for bandwidth sharing may be displayed.
7. Strong administrative and legal provisions (even contractual) need to be put in place
for payment of compensation in case of cable damage by any agency executing
the works.
DRAFT Final Report
68 Cross Border FOC
VI. Cross Border Co-deployment of Optical Fibre Cables
1. Status of Cross Border FOC: Some of the Public Sector Units have deployed FOC
along the Highways. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) have erected a
few links using the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) on their High Voltage Power
Transmission Lines. BSNL has reported to have commissioned a few links in bits and
pieces. Indian Railways, although, have laid cables up to the last station on the Indian
side near the border, no FOC link has been established crossing the border. Private
Sector Units have carried out Cross Border deployment for extending ILD and Internet
connectivity in the interiors of a fe neighbouring countries.
2. India - Cross Border FOC Links by PSUs:
A. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (POWERGRID), a Nav-Ratna PSU,
is the ‘Central Transmission Utility (CTU)’ of India, which owns and operates
one of the largest Power Transmission Networks in the world and carries more
than 50% of power generated in India. This PSU has also installed inter country
power transmission line currently operational between Bangladesh - India,
Bhutan – India and Nepal – India. POWERGRID has installed dedicated
Overhead Optic Fibre Communication Network (Optical Ground Wire or
OPGW) for real time operation and maintenance of the national grid. It
diversified into telecom business leveraging its country wide Transmission
Infrastructure. The OPGW has been installed on the Transmission Lines in
place of Earth Wire or for replacing existing earth wire. Except for taking
stringent precautions, no additional problems were encountered in OPGW
connectivity. The current network is spread over 48,000 km across the country.
It has acquired Unified licence for NLD and Internet Service Provider (ISP) ‘A’
service authorizations providing telecom connectivity solutions across India.
POWERGRID has commissioned Inter Country Power Transmission Lines with
OPGW to some countries on a few routes. The routes to Bhutan are between
Gelephu – Bongaigaon (India) and Malabase – Siliguri (India); to Bangladesh
are between Bheramara – Behrampur (India) and Comilla – Agartala (India)
and to Nepal are between Dhalkebar – Muzaffarpur (India) and Mahendranagar
– Ranakpur (India). More details along with the Interconnectivity Network
Diagram are given in the Network Diagram (Picture 15)
B. Bangladesh - POWERGRID OPGW is connected to Power Grid Corporation
of Bangladesh (PGCB) OPGW at Berhampur - Bheramara and Agartala -
Akhaura, which are both connected to Dhaka. Bangladesh is connected at
Cox’s Bazar through a sub-sea cable (SEA-ME-WE-4) to Singapore.
DRAFT Final Report
69 Cross Border FOC
PowerGrid Cross Border OPGW
(Picture 15 - Cross Border Transmission Network OPGW)
Dhaka
Behrampur Bheramara
To Mumbai &
Chennai
SEA-ME-WE4 to
Singapore
Comilla
Dhalkebar
Kathmandu
To Mumbai
To Chennai
Muzaffarpur
Sursand
Nepal Electricity
Authority OPGW
Tanakpur
Siliguri
Malabase
Thimphu
Gelephu
To Chennai &
Mumbai
PGCB OPGW
India
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
POWERGRID’s Fully Protected
All OPGW Network Across India
on Extra High Voltage
Transmission Line
Kolkata POWERGRID OPGW Inter Country OPGW link Neighbour Country OPGW
Delhi
Mahendranagar
DRAFT Final Report
70 Cross Border FOC
C. Another sub-sea cable (SEA-ME-WE-5) connecting Patuakhali in Bangladesh
to Singapore and London is expected to be operational shortly. M/s Bangladesh
Submarine Cable Company (BSCCL) owns stake in and operates the sub-sea
cable (SEA-ME-WE-4) and cable landing stations (CLS) at Cox’s Bazar and
Patuakhali. BSCCL CLS are connected through Power Grid Corporation of
Bangladesh (PGCB) owned OPGW to Dhaka, Agartala via Comilla and
Behrampur (India) via Bheramara.
D. Bhutan - Bhutan is a landlocked country with hilly terrain prone to earthquakes
and it is dependent on terrestrial telecom connectivity through India for their
connectivity to international communication and data centre hubs such as
Mumbai, Chennai, Singapore, Marseilles (France) and London. POWERGRID
OPGW is connected to BPC OPGW at Siliguri – Malabase and Bongaigaon –
Gelephu routes.
E. Nepal - Nepal is also a landlocked country with hilly terrain prone to
earthquakes and it is dependent on terrestrial telecom connectivity through
India for their connectivity to international communication and data centre hubs
such as Mumbai, Chennai, Singapore, Marseilles (France) and London.
POWERGRID OPGW is connected to Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) OPGW
at Muzaffarpur – Dhalkebar route. NEA OPGW is further connected to
Kathmandu and other cities. Another route connecting Kathmandu through
NEA owned OPGW through Mahendranagar in western Nepal to Tanakpur in
Uttarakhand is already commissioned.
F. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) with Bangladesh -
1. Bangladesh Telecom Company Limited (BTCL) has got a link with BSNL
between Akhaura and Agartala, in Tripura (India) terminated in a hand
hole/joint enclosure. The work on this link was commenced by BSNL in July
2015 and completed in February 2016. ILD Gateway and Integrated Check
Post has been set up at Agartala along with associated equipment for lawful
interception and monitoring of data traffic.
2. This caters for the third International Internet Gateway (IIG) (In addition to the
Cable Landing stations at Mumbai and Chennai) operational through Cox’s
Bazar in Bangladesh. The cost of this Cross Border OFC is estimated to be
191 Million INR with an annual operational expenditure of about 72 Million
INR to be funded by Department of Telecom. FOC Link between Akhaura and
Brahmanbaria, a distance of about 30 kms, has been laid by BTCL. An FOC
Link between Krishna Nagar (India) and Chuadanga (Bangladesh extends a
bandwidth of 3 streams of 2 MBps. Internet access is through Bangladesh
Submarine Cable Company Ltd (BSCCL) on commercial terms of yearly
payments within the frame work of inter Governmental Agreement. This will
provide vital Broadband connectivity to the remote corners of the North
Eastern States of India. Earlier this connectivity was through the Indian sub-
DRAFT Final Report
71 Cross Border FOC
continent the undersea cables landing at Chennai and Mumbai through a
longer failure prone route and lower speeds of data.
3. Work on the Railway Line between Agartala and Akhaura (About 15 Kms) has
commenced from 12th Sept 2018. The 15.054 kms long cross-border
Agartala-Akhaura rail project is developed at an estimated cost of INR 9.68
billion ($133.25 million) (https://www.railway-technology.com/news/india-
bangladesh-commence-construction-works-key-railway-link/)
4. Indian Experience on Cross Border FOC: Bangladesh Telecom Company
Limited (BTCL) has established an FOC link with BSNL, India taken along the
Road between Akhaura and Agartala, in Tripura (India) terminated in a Hand
Hole/Joint Enclosure in the Integrated Check Post (ICP). The work on this
link was commenced by BSNL in July 2015 and completed in January 2016.
ILD Gateway and Integrated Check Post has been set up at Agartala along
with associated equipment for Lawful Interception and Monitoring of Data
Traffic. This caters for the third International Internet Gateway (IIG) (In
addition to the Cable Landing stations at Mumbai and Chennai) operational
through Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. OFC, between Akhaura and
Brahmanbaria, a distance of about 30 kms, has been laid by BTCL. A Railway
Line between Agartala and Akhaura (About 15 Kms) has also been planned.
(Picture 16 - Cross Border FOC India - Bangaladesh)
5. Two FOCs have been laid between North Gate Telephone Exchange (TE) in
Agartala in the State of Tripura in India and the Akhaura TE in Bangladesh a
distance of about 10.1 Kms along the road between the two locations, one
FOC on each side of the road, as shown in the figure. North East Task Force
(NETF) of BSNL has laid two FOCs of 24 fibre each from North Gate TE to
the Integrated Check Point (ICP) over a route length of 3.7 Kms. From ICP to
Akhaura TE, Bangladesh portion of the FOCs, is laid by BTCL of Bangla-
desh.
DRAFT Final Report
72 Cross Border FOC
6. Governance, Institutional and Legal Issues: Inter Governmental
Agreement covering the Railway and Telecommunication Connectivity
between Agartala in India and Akhaura in Bangladesh was signed during the
bilateral meetings between the Prime Ministers of both the countries.
Thereafter, a Leasing of Internet Bandwidth Agreement was signed on 6th
June 2015 between the PSUs after extensive deliberations covering the
Technical and Commercial aspects. Fibres has been directly connected to the
10G port of the International Gate Way (IGW) router. Internet access is
through Bangladesh Submarine Cable Company Ltd (BSCCL) on commercial
terms of yearly payments within the frame work of inter Governmental and
PSU Leasing Agreement. The agreement, which has been signed between
BSNL, India and BSCCL for extending the required bandwidth and data
access, provides for bandwidth upto 40G. The Internet Access is provided at
the Integrated Check Post at the Zero Point in Agartala on the Akhaura
Road. This will provide vital broadband connectivity to the remote corners of
the North Eastern States of India. Earlier this connectivity was through the
Indian sub- continent the undersea cables landing at Chennai and Mumbai
through a longer failure prone route and lower speeds of data.
(Picture 17 - Integrated Check Post - India - Bangaladesh)
7. Financial Basis and Cost Sharing: Cost of the Project on either side of the
two countries is borne by their respective PSUs. No Private Sector entity was
associated. Cost of the FOC portion in India was about INR 190 Million from
the Telephone exchange in Agartala to the Zero Point. Integrated Check Post
DRAFT Final Report
73 Cross Border FOC
costed INR 800 Million. Lease charges to be paid for use of 10G bandwidth
is pat of the Leasing Agreement and is about INR 80 Million annually.
8. Operations and Maintenance Of Cross Border Link: Manpower Re-
sources and Cost for Operations and Maintenance of the FOC Link between
Agartala and Akhaura including the Equipment either side of the two coun-
tries is borne by their respective PSUs. Authorised personnel of both coun-
tries work at the Integrated Check Post for monitoring the Link.
G. Myanmar - Telecom Corporation of India Ltd (TCIL), a Government of India
PSU, has executed an FOC from Tamu, a Burmese City near the Indian border
to Mandalay, the second largest city in Myanmar, a distance of about 475 Kms.
On the Indian side, BSNL were to link at Tamu from the city of Moreh in Manipur.
This is the first Land Link between Myanmar and India in the SouthEast Asian
Region. In the subsequent phase, the FOC link was required to be extended to
Kuala Lampur and Singapore. This Land Link will serve as a backup to the
BSNL/MTNL under-sea Link to Singapore planned by their JV, Unit Millennium
Telecom Ltd.
H. Nepal - Napalese Government planned for an FOC Network along about 615
Kms of the BP Koirala Highway and the Bardibas - Birganj Section in Nepal
under the South Asia Subregional Economic Co-operation (SAAEC)
Information Highway Project with Cross Border Connectivity at Cable Landing
Stations (CLS) between Birganj and Raxaul (India) and between Biratnagar in
east Nepal and Forbesganj (India) via Jogbani (India). FOC network was
commissioned in July 2015 with 63 streams of 2 MBps connectivity. The plan
is to establish FOC Link with backbone bandwidth capacity of 10 GBps and
providing ICT access to rural area and with cross border link between Nepal
and India and to Bhutan and Bangladesh supported by the Asian Development
bank (ADB). Ministry of Information and Communication (MoIC) of Nepal
steered the Project through Nepal Telecom. The objective is to reduce
interconnection charges between countries, provide low cost and better data
and voice services with 70% of the bandwidth set aside for commercial
purposes and the balance for ISPs/TSPs in rural hinterland. In India, ADB has
assigned the Project to BSNL to extend the FOC Connectivity to Internet
Gateway and Bhutan and Bangladesh and International access through the
undersea FOC to reduce dependency on Satellite links in the land locked Nepal.
The slow growth in ICT penetration (15% in Nepal) is attributed to high tariff,
quality and speed issues and lack of cross border infrastructure
I. Bhutan - BSNL has established connectivity to Bhutan through Hashimara
(India) and Phuntsholing (Bhutan) extending 8 streams of 2 MBps bandwidth
for the ILD.
3. India - Private Sector Units:
DRAFT Final Report
74 Cross Border FOC
a. Private Sector entities, Bharti AirTel and Tata Telecom have laid FOC and have
established Links with International Terrestrial Cable (ITC) Operators at the
Benapole - Petrapole, West Bengal (India) border with Bangladesh. Bharti
Airtel’s terrestrial fibre-optic India-Bangladesh cable has gone live, running from
Bongaon in West Bengal, India, to the Petrapole-Benapole border. The project
was to improve voice and data connectivity between the countries before
Bangladesh’s mobile licence auction in September 2013. This connection will
enhance transit traffic between Bangladesh and other business hubs in
Singapore, London, Chennai and Los Angeles through India. The terrestrial cable
provides alternative international capacity for Bangladesh, a country with a single
undersea fibre-optic connection (SEA-ME-WE-4) preently. FOC has been
terminated from either side at the Common Interface Point.
b. In August 2009, Bharti Airtel Asia’s leading Integrated TSP launched a new
Terrestrial Cable Network to Bhutan as a part of their Network Expansion Plan
to open up new Cross Border Connectivity solutions for the South Asian
countries. Airtel inked an MoU with the Royal Government of Bhutan to extend
fibre connectivity to the Himalayan Kingdom. The initiative will enable enterprises
in Bhutan, to reach out to the world by accessing Bharti’s cable assets, through
its International cable landing stations in Chennai and Mumbai. The terrestrial
fibre optic link to Bhutan will be ring protected to ensure high uptime. The initiative
is set to boost IT & telecommunication infrastructure in Bhutan to bring much
needed diversity and provide a fillip to communication services in the region. By
connecting Bhutan ISPs directly to Bharti’s global network, users in Bhutan will
experience superior quality of voice and data services. Bharti offers the widest
pan India reach with an infrastructure that comprises of 104,540 Rkms of fibre,
over 1,500 MPLS and SDH POPs and over 1,491 POIs with the local exchanges.
c. Reliance planned new India-Bangladesh fibre links in September 2009. Indian
TSP Reliance Communications (RCOM) improved links between the remote
northeast of India with the rest of the country by deploying new terrestrial fibre-
optic routes passing through Bangladesh, which would in turn give the
neighbouring country access to international submarine and terrestrial networks.
Reliance applied to the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission
(BTRC) to roll out two fibre links between Assam and Meherpur along the
Calcutta-Meherpur-Dhaka-Haflong and Calcutta-Meherpur-Dhaka-Comilla-
Agartala routes. RCOM has also approached Myanmar authorities to extend their
networks there, opening up possibility of another terrestrial route to China.
4. Policy & Plan:
Currently there appears to be no policy framework document although there are are a
few inter country agreements on co-deployment of fibre optic infrastructure crossing the
borders. There are case to case agreements between entities on either side for such
cross border links. Most countries, which are not landlocked depend on their network
connectivity, voice and data requirements from submarine cables.
DRAFT Final Report
75 Cross Border FOC
5. Cross Border Cases:
1. Republic of Korea (RoK):
1. Railway: UN-ESCAP declared 1985 to 1996 as the Transport and Communications
Decade to connect rich purchase power of Europe with the growing production capacity
of Northeast Asia for economic development and for establishing peace and stability.
Accordingly, in the 48th UNESCAP meeting in 1992 approved the Asian Highway (AH)
and the Trans-Asian Railways (TAR) Projects. In the Action Plan for 1994 – 1995, Trans-
Korean Railway (TKR) was included for feasibility study and Resolution to start
restoration of the TKR at the Ministerial Conference on Infrastructure held during the
52nd UNESCAP Meeting in 1996.
1. TKR Project Status: Trains operations started on the restored Railway Section of the
two Koreas on 17 May 2007. TKR can be connected by three possible routes,
Gyeongui Line, Donghae Line and Gyeongwon Line. Gyeongui Line measures 945
km and links Busan, Seoul, Gaeseong, Pyeongyang and Sinuiju making the border
crossing at Dorasan Station – Panmun Station. The 27.3 km missing link in this
railway was restored and trains ran between Munsan and Gaeseong for a short time
until North Korea closed the railway on its side so that trains can only go as far as
Dorasan Station. Donghae Line and Gyeongwon Line have still not been connected.
(Picture 18: Cross Border Routes -Gyeongui, Donghae and Gyeongwon Line)
2. Co-deployment of Fibre Optic Cables on TKR’s Gyeongui Line was done linking
Munsan, Dorasan, Panmun and Gaeseong on Gyeongui Line over a distance of 27.3
Kms using 24 Core OFC. South Korea (RoK) supplied fibre ducts and cables to North
Korea and all the equipment required to create the FOC Network including the
Test/Operation equipment. Man Hole termination was made in the Military
Demarcation Line in the presence of Engineers and Security officials of both the
sides.
3. Highway: In RoK, No Cross Border Fibre Optic Cable Deployment along the Highway
could be done as its territory is surrounded by the sea in all directions except from
DRAFT Final Report
76 Cross Border FOC
north. The northern border is with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK) and there are limited number of communication lines for specific purposes
between RoK and DPRK so far. Along the Highway, there was an FOC between RoK
and DPRK to support business in Kaesong Industrial Zone (KIZ) in DPRK in 2005.
However, after 10 years of operation, KIZ was temporarily closed in 2016. As the co-
operation between RoK and DPRK is restarting, interaction is continuing over re-
connecting Highways and Railways between the two Nations. Co-deployment of FOC
along the transportation corridors is likely.
2. Russian Federation:
1. Changing Paradigm: Potential exists for development of new international
digital infrastructure using best practices as there is a vision for changing the
existing paradigm. Roads become a resource for creation of telecommunication
networks, which in turn act as a resource for operating & maintaining roads and
traffic. The strategy is changing from the focus not only on functioning and safety
of the transport artery but also towards the regions and countries making use of
international fiber optic infrastructure along roads & highways and railways,
linked to distributed data processing centers and cyber security protecting the
data.
2. Creation of a new international network of fiber optic cable along of federal and
regional highways in Russian Federation in connection with Trans – European
Highways, AHs and TARs is a challenge for the digital transit route Europe-Asia
with innovative quantum data protection. The final aim of this vision could be the
creation and operations of heavy duty, public, highly profitable
telecommunication infrastructure for building fiber optic networks as well as for
building technological communication networks and ITS, communication
networks of different agencies, central and regional authorities in neighbor
countries, state owned and commercial organizations. The construction of this
digital infrastructure could be carried out in accordance with recommendations of
the International Telecommunication Union ITU – T L.48 and L.49 by stacking on
the side of the road by mini-trench way the package from 2 to 10 protected plastic
microtubules, united in the mono block followed by pneumatic cabling with
capacity from 8 up to 288 fibers. The consumers would be welcome to buy or
rent individual microtubules, fiber optic cables or individual optical fibers in this
new international digital network. This ensures the process of development and
further operation of the management system of scalable, geographically
distributed Data Processing Centers, integrated by communication lines,
protected with the use of quantum encryption technologies. Development of new
management system of geographically distributed Data Processing Centers is
the real need of the international digital infrastructure, the main purpose of which
is the creation of telecommunication network in the body of roads. To process
Data, transmitted through the network, new Data Processing Centers should be
created, located in different cities of neighbor countries, which would be united
DRAFT Final Report
77 Cross Border FOC
into the single “cloud”. Load balancing between distributed Data Processing
Centers ensures that all data processing and storage tasks are performed and
ensures that the system is resilient to technical, natural and social accidents.
Rapid digitalization encourages the development and implementation of new
solutions for data security and storage. On the other hand, this is driven by the
critical increase of crimes against personal data, intensification of hackers
attacks, hacking and unauthorized introduction into the public and private
information transfer systems. To protect information, transmitted via
telecommunication lines is possible only through the use of encryption with
periodically changing keys. The latest development of Russian specialists
allows to change the keys few dozen times per second, which make it almost
useless to attempt to intercept data, because it will be practically impossible to
expand them. Many years of successful international and domestic experience
in developing fiber optic network, fulfilled, ongoing and perspective projects in
Russian Federation demonstrates the effectiveness of legal, financial and
technical escort with full set of tools to support, protect and promote industrial
and business activities in this sphere. Some of success stories and best practices
cases are illustrated:
1. Europe- Russia – Mongolia – China (ERMC) In early 2002 TTK and Railtelia Ltd
(Finland) announced interconnection of their fibre optic networks along the
railways on Russia-Finland boundary of Buslovskaya - Vainikkala. The segment
Saint-Petersburg - Buslovskaya is a part of TAR Network. In 2004, TTK in
collaboration with the Mongolian carrier and the Chinese national telecom
company offered the shortest fiber-optic path between Europe and Asia spanning
a length of 11 500 kms and providing a shorter alternative path to submarine
cables. ERMC stretches from London to Hong Kong along part of the TAR
Network as shown in Case 1.
ERMC (Europe-Russia-Mongolia-China) - Case 1
Date 2004
Length 11500 km (total)
International Connectivity
Russian Federation to China via Mongolia
Main Nodes London, Stockholm, Moscow, Ulan-Bator, Beijing, Hong Kong
Capacity Initial capacity 40 Gbit/s, and it can be scaled up to 400 Gbit/s.
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators
TransTeleKom (TTK), Russian Federation Ulan-Bator Railway, Mongolia China United Telecom Corp. (China Unicom)
DRAFT Final Report
78 Cross Border FOC
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Follows Mongolia - Russian Federation rail line (part of TAR)
2. China and Mongolia: Commensurate with its status as the world’s largest country
by landmass, Russian Federation plays a pivotal role in facilitating terrestrial
connectivity. While using co-deployment as a best practice for national network,
several cross-border connections make use of co-deployed fiber optic cables.
Russian Federation and China have implemented cross border terrestrial fiber
projects as shown below. Few of these crossings link Russia, China and Mongolia,
providing valuable redundancy and opportunities for economic development
(Case 2).
Case 2
Region Border Crossing Border Station Operator
Russia and Mongolia
China-Russia Fuyuan，
Manzhouli，
Heihe，Suifenhe
China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile
Russia and Mongolia
China-Mongolia Erenhot China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile
3. Russian Federation (Rostelecom) – Azerbaijan. The routes follow E119
highway (AH8 segment) and Azerbaijan-Russian Federation rail line. (Case 3)
Russian Federation (Rostelecom) – Azerbaijan - Case 3
Date 2003
Length 400 km
International Connectivity
Azerbaijan to Russian Federation via the border crossing at Samur, Azerbaijan
Main Nodes Baku
Capacity Initial capacity of STM-1 (155.52 Mbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Azertelecom/Delta Telecom Rostelecom Fiber supplied by Alcatel
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Follows the E119 (AH8) highway
DRAFT Final Report
79 Cross Border FOC
Notes Rostelecom’s investment in the network, which stretches 200 kilometers on the Russian Federation side between Makhachkala and Derbent, was RUB 137 million (USD$4.5 million).
4. Russian Federation – Azerbaijan (Aztelecom). Azertelecom and the Russian
Federation operator Synterra signed an agreement in May, 2009 for construction
of a 10 Gbps link between Derbent, Russia and Guba, Azerbaijan, along E119
(AH8) highway. A joint venture framework of $17 million between the two
companies, known as C-Ring Telecom, was formed targeting the neighboring
telecom markets in the Caspian region. In 2009, Iran Mobin consortium also
entered into a 50/50 joint venture with C-Ring to expand connectivity southward
toward Islamic Republic of Iran. In July of 2010, the Russian regulator
Roskomnadzor granted a license to Synterra for operation of the trans-border fiber
optic link. By 2011 sources indicate that the Azerbaijani segment of the network
had been completed and that C-Ring was awaiting completion of Russian
segments. However, the future of the C-Ring consortium was called into doubt
following the purchase of Synterra by Russian telecom conglomerate MegaFon in
2010, which reportedly reevaluated the role of C-Ring in its international network
development strategy (Case 4).
Russian Federation (Synterra (MegaFon) - Azerbaijan / (Azertelecom) - Case 4
Date 2010/2011
Length 100 km
International Connectivity
Derbent, Russian Federation to Quba, Azerbaijan via the border crossing at Samur, Azerbaijan
Main Nodes Quba, Azerbaijan
Capacity STM-64 (10 Gbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Azertelecom/Delta Telecom Synterra (acquired by MegaFon in 2010)
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Follows the E119 (AH8) highway
5. Russian Federation – Azerbaijan. Russia’s TTK has provided trans-border IP
bandwidth between Yalama, Azerbaijan and Samur, Russia to Delta Telecom
since 2008. The company is a subsidiary of national railway operator Russian
DRAFT Final Report
80 Cross Border FOC
Railways and major operator of fiber optic network on railways, which runs along
all Russia's mainline railways spanning a distance of over 76,000 kilometers. TTK
interacts with more than 100 global and international operators. TransTeleKom
specified that it provided 2.5 Gbps of IP bandwidth to Delta Telecom by 2009 and
thereafter, the network was upgraded to 10 Gbps. The cable follows Azerbaijan-
Russian Federation rail line (TAR Network). (Case 5)
Russian Federation – Azerbaijan - Case 5
Date 2007/2008 (est.)
Length 20 km
International Connectivity
Russian Federation to Azerbaijan via Yalama, Azerbaijan
Main Nodes Yalama, Azerbaijan
Capacity Initial capacity of STM-64 (10 Gbps)
Network Technology SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Azertelecom/Delta Telecom TTK (Russian Federation)
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Follows Azerbaijan-Russian Federation rail line (part of TAR)
6. Russian Federation – Kazakhstan. (Case 6).
Russian Federation – Kazakhstan - Case 6
Date 1999
Length 340 kilometers
International Connectivity
Petropavlovsk, Kazakshstan to Kormilovka, Russian Federation via Omsk, Kazakhstan
Main Nodes Petropavlovsk
Capacity Initial capacity of STM-4 (622 Mbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Kazakhtelecom Interconnection with Rostelecom and TTK (TTK link constructed in 2009)
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Follows M51, E30 (AH6) highway
DRAFT Final Report
81 Cross Border FOC
7. Russian Federation – Northern Kazakhstan In late-2013 the mobile operator
MegaFon announced that in partnership with Kazakhtelecom, it had activated its
Diverse Route for European and Asian Markets (DREAM) network between
Germany and Kazakhstan’s border with China, using primarily existing
infrastructure (Case 7).
Russian Federation - Northwestern Kazakhstan - Case 7
Date 2001
Length 340 kilometers
International Connectivity
Atyrau, Kazakhstan to Volgograd, Russian Federation via Saykhin, Kazakhstan
Main Nodes Atyrau
Capacity Initial capacity of STM-4 (622 Mbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Kazakhtelecom Interconnects with networks of Rostelecom, VimpelCom, and MegaFon (originally Synterra) Rostelecom link supplied by Siemens
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Via the main road between Atyrau and Volzhsky, Russian Federation (north of Volgograd).
8. Russian Federation -Western Kazakhstan (Case 8).
Russian Federation - Western Kazakhstan - Case 8
Date 2006 (est.)
Length 200 kilometers
International Connectivity
Atyrau, Kazakhstan to Astrakhan, Russian Federation via Ganyushkino, Kazakhstan
Main Nodes Atyrau
Capacity Initial capacity of STM-4 (622 Mbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Kazakhtelecom Rostelecom
Continuity with Rail/Highway
Via the A27 highway (Kazakhstan) and the A340 highway (Russian Federation), part of AH70
DRAFT Final Report
82 Cross Border FOC
9. Europe Persia Express Gate (EPEG). In March of 2011 a memorandum of
understanding was signed by four investors to create a 10,000 kms EPEG network
between Oman and Frankfurt, Germany. A construction and maintenance
agreement was signed by the project’s four investors in Tehran, Islamic Republic
of Iran in June, 2011; testing took place in 2012 and the network was put into
service in 2013. The impetus for the Europe Persia Express Gateway project was
the delay in activating the trans-Egyptian segments of the Europe-India Gateway
(EIG) undersea cable project - (Case 9).
Europe Persia Express Gateway (EPEG) Case 9
Date 2013 (MOU signed in 2011 and testing carried out in 2012)
Length 600 km within Azerbaijan; entire network spans 10,000 km
International Connectivity
Via existing Trans Asia-Europe (TAE) infrastructure connecting the Iranian border at Astara to Baku, then via existing infrastructure to the Russian Federation border at Yalama
Main Nodes Baku
Capacity Advertised capacity of 500 Gbps for the entire network (design capacity of 3.2 Tbps)
Network Technology
SDH
Developers / Owners / Operators / Suppliers
Delta Telecom describes itself as the “transit operator” of the Azerbaijani segments, but responsibility for the segments within the consortium is actually assigned to Rostelecom. In addition to Rostelecom, the EPEG consortium also consists of Omantel, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Company of Islamic Republic of Iran, and Vodafone (originally Cable & Wireless Worldwide).
Continuity with Rail/Highway
The network follows the M3 highway at the Iranian border crossing and the Azerbaijan-Russian Federation railroad right-of-way at the Russian Federation border crossing.
Notes Cost of Azerbaijani segments was €3 million, using existing infrastructure including Trans Asia-Europe (TAE) segments
10.
(Picture 19 - Cross Border EPEG)
DRAFT Final Report
83 Cross Border FOC
11. TRANSIT EUROPE – ASIA (TEA) TEA is the international transit fiber-optic
cable line passing trough Russia and linking Europe with China and Mongolia and
other South-East Asia countries and Japan, which allows any traffic type and data:
voice, video, data of corporates, banking systems and applications, traffic of core
networks of global carriers. Important feature of the international TEA line is two
physically diverse transmission routes on Rostelecom (Russian National
Telecom Company) core networks and trans-border extensions to Finland,
Belarus, Ukraine, Mongolia, China and Japan. In 2015 the volume of international
commercial traffic carried by Transit Europe-Asia system exceeded to 600 Gbps.
Partners of TEA project are companies: Rostelecom, China Telecom, China
Unicom, China Mobile, TeliaSonera, KDDI, Vodafone.
(Picture 20 -
Cross Border -
Transit Europe
Asia)
12. CARAVAN \ CAVLANE - СARAVAN is an innovative project of Rosavtodor,
which is aimed to create digital infrastructure on the network of federal roads for
common, connected and self driving vehicles, using technologies of cooperative
ITS V2V, V2I and V2X. The vision is to create international smart transport
corridors with service continuity across borders.
DRAFT Final Report
84 Cross Border FOC
(Picture 21 - Cross Border CARAVAN)
Connected Automated Vehicle Lane (CAVLANE) Consortia. It’s objective is to create
new products and standards for crossing borders in particular for increasing road
safety, improving mobility and logistics, boosting businesses and creating markets
for new innovations. CAVLANE ITS route would begin from the biggest cities of
Finland and run via Helsinki through the border with Russia to Saint Petersburg,
Moscow, Kazan to the border with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. Testing cross-
border interoperability of different relevant international standards and directives for
communication is done. In May 2018, the first demo test of autonomous trucks and
self driving vehicles within the project was demonstrated. The road infrastructure
was equipped with all necessary means, which allows the driving of autonomous
trucks and vehicles. A digital model of the road was created together with other digital
services. The testing site deployed cellular system LTE standard. Two KAMAZ
trucks, one shuttle bus and two cars participated in the test drive. Aim of the consortia
is to create full service international transport corridor for connected and autonomous
vehicles from Europe to Western China AH8 and AH5.
3. Thailand - Border Crossing - FOC was laid along the highways/railways crossing the border
connecting neighbouring countries. There are 19 international FOC links between Thailand
and neighbouring countries along highway and railway routes.
1. Cross border links are shown in the Table 6 below. Operation of FOC in Ban Nampu Ron
Kanchanaburi province located in military area at border with Mynamar, needs
authorization from the Royal Thai Army.
Table 6
Thailand’s Cross Border FOC Connectivity
Country Cross Border Node Country Cross Border Node
DRAFT Final Report
85 Cross Border FOC
Myanmar Maesai Laos Chiang Khong
Maesod Nong Khai
Ban Nampu Ron Nakhon Phanom
Kra buri Mukdahan
Malaysia Sadao Cambodia Chong Mex
Padang Baesar Aranyaprathet
2. Thailand - Malaysia Railway Link: Along the railway route, cross border FOC is laid
between Thailand and Malaysia at Sadao and Padang Baesar, where the Thai TSP
requires RoW approval from NBTC and use of telecom duct from SRT. Jointed SRT, Com-
link and TOT PCL and Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) or Malayan Railways
Limited, which is the main rail operator in Peninsular Malaysia, had an FOC link. But the
systems provided at the border interchange point were terminated, when the Com-link
contract expired. Currently, a TSP from Thailand has installed FOC in a duct connecting
it to a carrier from Malaysia, Fiberail Sdn Bhd, which is a joint venture between Telekom
Malaysia Berhad, KTMB and Petrofibre Network Sdn Bhd. One of the three Malaysia
operators, provides the backbone infrastructure and ancillary services to TSPs. The
future cross border project will be at Kelantan, Malaysia, which will be connected to
submarine cable landing stations, which is currently awaiting authorization from NBTC.
(Picture 22 - Border Crossing Road between Thailand and Malaysia)
3. Thailand and Laos - Railway Link: Section from Nong Khai to Vientiane, or
from Nong Khai to Thanaleng is part of the first cross border FOC link to Laos.
Starting at Nong Khai station and crossing Thai–Lao Friendship Bridge, and
ending at Thanaleng station at a distance of 5.35 Kms with 3.5 kms in Laos. For
FOC along the railway route on cross border Thailand and Laos, the Thai TSP
DRAFT Final Report
86 Cross Border FOC
needs RoW approval from NBTC and permission to use telegraph poles from
SRT the owner. Along withe permissions required as per procedure, TSP needs
an approval from the Thai–Lao Bridge Management Committee (BMC). The
operator from Laos needs to process the same mechanisms as in Thailand. The
link at cross border is developed and maintained jointly by operators.
(Picture 23 - Thai - Laos Friendship Cross Border Bridge)
4. Thailand - Highway Border Crossing - Thailand has
gained experience of installing or deploying along
FOC along the Highways that cross the borders and
connect to neighbouring countries; Myanmar,
Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia. FOC laid across the
border is terminated at border crossing point or
area. For co-ordination and monitoring the
performance, a central committee comprising
members from both countries is established at
crossing bridge. About 10 personnel, with five from
Thailand selected from Department of Local
Administration, Ministry of Interior and other
relevant disciplines and another five from the
neighbouring country, form this Committee.
(Picture 24 - Cross Border
Thailand)
5. Pakistan - China Highway - Border Crossing Project: 820 km optical fibre network project
between Pakistan and China along Karakorum Highway is being completed at a quick pace
and is expected to boost tourism, trade, telecom and Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) sector. The main alignment of 820 km Optic Fibre Cable that runs all the
way from Khunjerab to Rawalpindi traversing through cities of Rawalpindi, Mansehra, Naran,
DRAFT Final Report
87 Cross Border FOC
Babusar top, Chillas, Gilgit, Karimabad, and Khunjerab. The cost of this Optic Fibre Cable is
$44 million. The Exim Bank of China provided 85% of loan for the project at a reduced rate.
The project will specifically play a fundamental role in the provision of 3G and 4G services in
Gilgit Baltistan apart from establishing alternate international connectivity. The project aims
to provide the 3G and 4G services at par with the services already provided in rest of
Pakistan. Most importantly, the project will provide benefits consisting of a major source of
revenue, facilitate trade, tourism and IT awareness in the region. The project will also help
youth in the region in getting employment. Furthermore, the project will also enable
advanced telecom facilities on the entire route along with providing direct access for
Pakistan-Middle East for China and Central Asian Republics, Far East and Europe. (Details
shared after the Workshop).
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/64981531.cms?utm_source=contentofinte
rest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
6. Governance & Institutional Aspect:
1. India: Inter governmental agreements covering aspects of mutual interest,
including Roads, Railway and Telecommunication Connectivity, are generally
signed during the bilateral meetings between the countries coordinated by
concerned ministries. Thereafter, other agreements of FOC infrastructure laying
and leasing of internet bandwidth between the concerned PSUs (BSNL, TCIL,
PGCIL etc) are drafted after extensive deliberations covering the technical and
commercial aspects. Private Sector entities, Bharti AirTel, Reliance and Tata
Telecom establish links with International Terrestrial Cable (ITC) Operators
under specific agreements on which details are not shared in the public domain.
2. China: Standard ”Telecommunication Service Classification Catalogue” does not
cover the construction of international telecommunications facilities and services.
So, the licensing system is still in place for the construction of international
telecommunications facilities. According to regulations issued by the Ministry of
Information Industry in 2000, only three Chinese companies have permission
to operate international communications infrastructure. Earlier, China's
expressway construction did not consider cross-border construction due to
different standards of highway construction in different countries and highway
departments and construction companies did not include cross-border
communication system construction in projects and standards based on the
extant laws and regulations. If a communication company needs to build cross-
border telecommunications facilities within the RoW, the Chinese highway
department will carry on the construction examination, approval and construction
according to the highway regulation.
3. Korea (RoK): Governments on either side have been reported to be co-operating
to establish transport nad telecom links.
DRAFT Final Report
88 Cross Border FOC
4. Russia: Federal State Institution, Directorate for construction and
operation of Rosgranitsa facilities, Rosgranstroy. is supervised by the
Ministry of transport of the Russian Federation and is responsible for the
organization of border, customs and other types of control at checkpoints and
border crossings to implement the complex measures on crossing the state
border of Russian Federation by the Decree of the Government of Russian
Federation. The main objectives of Rosgranstroy are:
• Creation of modern appearance of checkpoints through the state border,
• Ensuring their smooth operations,
• Equipping border crossing points with modern technical means and systems
aimed for improving the level of security of the state border,
• Increase in throughput of border crossing points,
• Development of border infrastructure.
Among different professional functions of Rosgranstroy there are: development
and implementation of technical requirements for the development of state border
facilities based on innovative architectural and construction solutions and
equipping and modernization the state border facilities with the latest
technological equipment. Rosgranstroy is in charge of the branch network of 388
checkpoints on all extent along the state border of Russian Federation which is
62 262 km. The network is composed of 108 road, 56 railway, 81 air, 56 marine,
7 mixed, 3 river and 1 pedestrian checkpoints. The activities of branches take into
account the social-economic development of the regions, and cross border co-
operation, intensity of movement of foreign trade goods and passenger traffic,
which in turn is the basic principal for differentiated approach to the arrangement
of each specific section of the state border. The main cross border check points
are equipped with the modern fiber optic cable network and different equipment
which allows the automatic mode to determine weight and size characteristics of
trucks, to recognize the state registration marks of cars, to provide comfort,
security and maximum speed of custom clearance of goods and border crossing
formal procedures. The state company Rosgranstroy has developed the strategic
program, that provides a systematic approach to the equipment of the most
important checkpoints in the Central and Far East federal districts of Russia:
Troebortnoye, Sudzha, Pogar, Pokrovka, Nizhneleninskoe, Amurzet,
Torfyanovka, Lotta, Brusnichnoe, Verhniy Lars, Nizhniy Zaramag, Yarag-
Kazmalyar. The program would be finished at the end of 2018.
7. Legal & Regulatory Framework: Enabling Rules, Acts, Laws and Regulations for
allowing RoW to Railways and Highways; permitting use of RoW for deployment,
operations & maintenance of FOC are briefly covered for cross border deployment,
1. Russian Federation: Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and
Mass Media is the Governmental agency of Russia, responsible for developing and
implementing national policy and legal regulation.
DRAFT Final Report
89 Cross Border FOC
a. Cross border regulations are covered by the following norms:
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 25.12.2007 (as
amended on 04.09.2012) № 930 “On approval of general requirements for
construction, reconstruction, equipment and technical equipment of buildings,
premises and structures necessary to ensure border, customs and other types
of control carried out at the check points across the state border of the Russian
Federation.”
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24.06.2008 №
907 (as amended on 01.12.2012) “On approval of the list of types of economic
and other activities that can be carried out within the border crossing points”;
- Decision of the Commission of the Customs Union of 22.06.2011 No. 668 "On
common requirements for equipment and material and technical equipment of
buildings, premises and structures, necessary for the organization of border,
customs, sanitary-quarantine veterinary, quarantine phyto-sanitary and
transport control carried out at the customs border of the Eurasian Economic
Union (EEU), classification of customs border crossing points of the EEU and
the form of passport of the EEU border crossing point.”
- The order of Federal customs service of 31.10.2008 No. 1349 " About the
approval of standard requirements to technical equipment of buildings, rooms
and constructions necessary for the organization of customs control in check
points across the state border of the Russian Federation;
- Charter of the Federal state institution “Rosgranstroy”.
- In each special case there is the a package of legal documents, regulating the
terms and conditions of the treaty.
b. Legal and regulatory activities are regulated by the constitution and decrees,
orders/regulations of the Government, international treaties, orders and
regulations of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Digital Development,
Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation and direct contracts
and agreements between state and private companies. Procedures and package
of legal documentation for CARAVAN\CAVLANE project between Russian
Federation and Finland is an example as detailed below:
- Inter-governmental transport agreement between Russia and Finland.
- Special meetings of the working group for transport twice a year at the level of
Deputy Ministers of Transport are going on for many years.
- Specialists discuss the priority issues of cross border co-operation, put them
into agenda and later review the achieved results, make necessary
amendments and updates for managing the process.
- In November 2012, an agreement was signed to create “Smart” International
Transport Corridor between Helsinki and Saint Petersburg, which in turn, was
extended to Moscow and then Kazan and now is continuing to the border with
Kazakhstan and would eventually become part of a major international corridor
"Europe - Western China”.
DRAFT Final Report
90 Cross Border FOC
- In September 2014, the Federal Road Agency "Rosavtodor" and the Finnish
Road Agency prepared and signed memorandum on data sharing to provide
ITS services.
- In 2016 the Federal state institution Rosgranstroy has developed the strategic
program that provides a systematic approach to the equipment of the most
important checkpoints on the border of Russia.
- In 2018, among others, checkpoints - Torfyanovka and Brusnichnoe - on the
border are being equipped with different equipment for ensuring formal
procedures for security, comfort, customs etc.
- Testing is done for interoperability of different relevant international standards
and directives for communication, C-ITS, automatic driving, platoon driving,
use of fiber-optic cables for custom procedures, information for road users
about traffic and weather conditions, traffic jams and queues, road-side
services, road works and accidents, navigation and selecting detour routes.
- Done as per State contracts of different companies selected by the Federal
state institution Rosgranstroy and Federal Rosavtodor on the competitive
basis according to the Federal Law № 325, 21.11.2011 “About organized
auctions”.
7. Cross Border FOC - Monitoring Facilities and Systems: Monitoring from
the Security Angle – On-line and off-line (capture, store and retrieve) monitoring of all
classes of traffic (Internet, video, audio etc.) specified by various attributes viz.
destination, recipient, sender, key words etc. is required to be provided for Cross Border
Telecom Traffic under the Lawful Interception (LI) Policy.
a. It is important that VoIP services provide Lawful Intercept and Emergency Call
Handling services to the same level as experienced in PSTN. The FCC in North
America has mandated that both emergency calls and Lawful Intercept must be
available. Not all the countries mandate this capability, any network operator
building a publicly available voice or multimedia over IP service today will need
to plan a network which is flexible enough to implement these regulatory services
in the future. Data traffic border controllers are being deployed at strategic points
within VoIP networks to execute a number of access, security and quality
management roles. Carrier class Session Border Controllers (SBCs) are
established to exert control over the signaling and usually also the media streams
involved in setting up, conducting, and tearing down telephone calls or other
interactive media communications. They already offer the levels of redundancy
and resilience to provide ‘five 9s’ availability, further endorsing their suitability for
the location of carrying out the Internal Intercept Function (IIF).
b. Russian Federation - Equipment at Cross Border Points: Requirements of
standard equipment at Check Points across the state border are stipulated in the
Federal Customs Service Order of 31.10.2008 No. 1349, which includes technical
equipment, buildings, rooms and constructions necessary for the organisation of
customs control. Para 14 stipulates the requirements of Integrated Structured
DRAFT Final Report
91 Cross Border FOC
Cable System, which provides for a physical environment for transmission of
information between all low-current systems of the object on the basis of the
principles of reliability, security, complexity, redundancy, uniformity, scalability
and manageability and in accordance with the applicable regulatory documents.
The facility may include the jobs subsystem, horizontal subsystem, subsystem of
internal roads of the facility, floor control object nodes, the Central distribution
node, object, subsystem external highways of the object, the input units. The
structure of subsystems of the cable system is defined for each concrete check
point based on the technology of the task.
c. India - Guidelines issued by DOT on LI are summarised below;
• Good quality intrusion detection system be provided to ensure that the landing
station (link) does not become a launch pad for attacking sites within the
Country. Agencies authorized by the Government may be able to monitor all
types of traffic passed through the landing terminals, including data, FAX,
speech, video and Multi-media etc., both in interactive and non-interactive
modes.
• It may be possible to scan through entire traffic passing through the gateway
and filter the traffic as per the key words/key expressions and addresses
defined by the security agencies. Filtered traffic should be stored in the
memory/directory provided for the security agencies, which have defined the
monitoring requirement. Log of recorded information for each agency must be
created in the directory of the agency concerned displaying the details like date
and time of recording, number of record etc.
• Each of the security agencies should be provided with a specified dedicated
space/memory/directory/storage in the Monitoring Centre computer. It should
be possible for the monitoring agencies to access the monitoring center
computer through PSTN line, ISDN line or dedicated lines (Cable pair or
Optical link). Adequate number of all types of interfaces may be provided at
the monitoring center to facilitate remote accessing for the security agencies.
• Remote Accessing/Log-in facility for security agencies should be through fully
secured unique password. Each agency must have different password. The
access password should be re-definable (changeable) by security agency
concerned. It should be possible to monitor the same traffic by more than one
security agency simultaneously. However, no agency should know the traffic
being monitored by other agencies.
• Office space of 20 feet x 20 feet with adequate uninterrupted power supply and
air-conditioning which will be physically secured and accessible only to the
personnel authorised by Telecom Authority, shall be provided by the licensee
at each location, free of cost.
8. Cross Border Financial basis and Cost Sharing: Strategy of financials and
cost sharing adopted in member countries is briefly covered.
DRAFT Final Report
92 Cross Border FOC
1. Russian Federation: Russia feedback indicates that the most effective financial
model for activities connected with laying the FOC networks along the roads and
crossing the state borders and providing information and operational services is the
Public Private Partnership (PPP) between Governmental agencies, public and private
companies, including international consortiums. For example; in case of
CARAVAN\CAVLANE Russian/Finnish consortium, the architecture of the project is
divided into two parts, representing each country. From the Finnish side it is
represented by VTT (Technical Research Center of Finland), which got financing from
the Ministry of transport of Finland and special grants from the European Commission
and a pool of private companies. The Russian side is represented by Rosavtodor,
Federal state institution Rosgranstroy, which have the state budgeting and financing
from the Ministry of transport of Russian Federation and pool of private companies.
Funding is divided between Russian and Finnish groups of the Consortia. For each
country, the budget of the project is shared amongst the agencies depending on their
role in the project. Initially, private companies invest their own resources into pilot
sites and testing procedures and after successful implementation and confirmation of
results and effectiveness, the project involves governmental agencies.
9. Cross Border Deployment - Conclusion & Inferences:
1. Highway and Railway entities have allowed use of RoW by PSUs, Telecom/FOC
Network Operators and Service Providers with specific permissions to lay along
or cross the transport infrastructure with one time charge based on local land
rates and in case of Universal Services without any charge.
2. Each entity has set unit’s own FOC Network Infrastructure laid on different routes
and paths by repeatedly digging along the RoW without any sharing of space or
pipe or duct.
3. For provision of Utility Ducts or Conduits close to the extreme edge of the Right
of Way (RoW) presently there is a Policy only in a few countries. Consultations
& Interactive Sessions are being held with concerned ministries.
10. Cross Border FOC Deployment - Recommendations:
1. TAR and AH network member nations need to first agree on the Cross Border
Transportation Infrastructure in order to have a mandated FOC Co-deployment
with Lawful Interception Systems. The Agreement is required to be in accordance
with the principles of mutual trust, equality and mutual benefits and may cover
specifics like exchange of locomotives, passenger and freight cars crossing the
borders, their outside maintenance by other country, compensation for
damage/destruction and distribution of transportation income.
2. Bilateral Agreement for FOC: Comprehensive Agreements may be drafted and
signed by both the countries mandating provision of FOC Connectivity specifying the
Technology and Configuration for Compatibility and also the Bandwidth requirement
over a defined time frame.
DRAFT Final Report
93 Cross Border FOC
3. Entity of Transport Infrastructure (AH or TAR) or Power Transmission Lines or
Gas/Oil Pipe Lines along which the FOC has to be Co-deployed be indicated. TSPs
may be identified and indicated in the Agreement.
4. Specifications of Conduits/Pipes and their numbers, FOC and the number of cores,
Man-Holes/Hand-Holes/Joint Enclosures, Terminations, Instruments & Infrastructure
for Lawful Interception (LI) may be standardised for small, medium and large
Interchange Points.
5. Access to Internet through International Gateways through the Submarine FOC
Cable Landing Stations be stipulated as per need of the country.
6. Monitoring from the Security Angle – On-line and off-line (capture, store and
retrieve) monitoring of all classes of traffic (Internet, video, audio etc.) specified by
various attributes viz. destination, recipient, sender, key words etc. is required to be
provided for Cross Border Telecom Traffic under the Lawful Interception (LI) Policy
be stipulated. Teams to include personnel of concerned departments of both the
countries as required. Common Hand Hole/Joint Enclosure needs to be kept in a
Permanent Structure with access to both the Countries for streamlined Operations,
Lawful Interception (LI) and Maintenance. Monitoring arrangements and protective
measures crossing the border with neighbouring countries are required in terms of
extant norms of LIMS on cross border telecom traffic.
7. ITS Centers of the neighboring countries on an international FOC corridor may
provide links for information exchange regarding the road and traffic conditions of
their responsibility areas to inform road users.
8. All Utilities and Ducts along with FOC POPs/POIs of all Entities/Entities should be
GIS mapped and shared across the stakeholders for optimised Installation, Reliable
Operations & Maintenance on the Web Site of the Common Utility Duct Authority.
9. Strong administrative and legal provisions (even contractual) need to be put in place
for payment of compensation in case of cable cut or cable damage by any
agency including Government agencies, private agencies or private third party
agencies executing the digging work.
10. As Broadband growth helps bridge the digital divide, and increases GDP, it is
important to have a substantial increase in the funding of the infrastructure and to
use the current USOF optimally, for broadband proliferation.
DRAFT Final Report
94 References
VII. References
1. ITU Report - State of the Broadband Report https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-
s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.17-2016-PDF-E.pdf
2. ITU Report on Status https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume1.pdf
3. Report “Recommendations on Delivering Broadband Quickly: What do we need to
do?” Dated 17.4. 2015 of TRAI, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg New Delhi, India. 110002.
https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Broadband%3D17.04.2015.pdf
4. ITU Report - Measuring the Information Society Volume 1 - ICT penetration and
spread in UNESCAP Countries Pages 11-14 - https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume1.pdf
5. MoRTH Letter No. RW/NH-33044/29/2015/S&R(R) dated Nov 22, 2016 for
Accommodation of Public and Industrial Utility Services along and across National
Highways - Policy Guidelines - Annexure 1.
6. Presentations by Mr Jagdeep Singh, General Manager, Operations, RailTel; Mr H.H.
Sharan, AGM, Load Despatch & Communication, Power Grid; Colonel R.S. Thakur,
Director, NFS, Directorate-General Signals, Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of
Defence (Army); and Mr Gopal Dutt, General Manager, GAILTEL.
7. Railway Reform - Toolkit for Improving Rail Sector Performance. World Bank case
study on RailTel.
https://ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/documents/toolkits/railways_toolkit/PDFs/RR%2
0Toolkit%20EN%20New%202017%2012%2027%20CASE12%20RAILTEL.pdf
8. UN-ESCAP publication on co-deployment of broadband network - saves 56.83% of
the laying cost in Myanmar in minimising overlapping works of excavation, protection,
backfilling and repair and restoration to the RoW of Highway. Opportunity for
Transport Sector to generate new sources of Revenue at an incremental cost of less
than 1% for the Utility Duct. https://www.unescap.org/resources/study-cost-benefit-
analysis-fibre-optic-co-deployment-asian-highway-connectivity
9. Gazette Notification issued by Government of India in regard to Rules for Right of
Way in India (http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/ROW_2016.pdf?download=1)
10. Turkey Electronic Communication Sector, Market Data Report 2018 2nd Quarter.
https://www.btk.gov.tr/uploads/pages/pazar-verileri/2018-2ceyrekraporu.pdf
Accessed: 3 December 2018
11. Turkey Transport and Communication Strategy, Goal 2023.
http://www.sp.gov.tr/tr/temel-belge/s/37/Turkiye+Ulasim+ve+Iletisim+Stratejisi.
12. National Broadband Strategy and Action Plan - Turkey (2017-2020.)
www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/12/20171221M1-1.pdf (Translation required)
13. The Tenth Development Plan - Turkey 2014-2018.
http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Kalknma%20Planlar/Attachments/12/Onuncu_Kal
kınma_Planı.pdf.
DRAFT Final Report
95 References
14. Law on Electronic Communication in Turkey.
http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5809.pdf, Accessed: 8 Sept 2018
(Translation Required).
15. Circular on Fibre Optic Cable Installation. No: 2017/E.6, 14 August 2017, General
Directorate of Highways, Turkey. Institutional use only.
16. Reference document for Electronic Communication Infrastructure Facilities in
Turkey. https://www.btk.gov.tr/uploads/pages/slug/elektronik-haberles-me-
altyapisina-i-lis-kin-yer-alti-tesisleri-asgari-gereklilikler.pdf Accessed: 9 Sept 2018.
17. Regulation on the Transition of all kinds of Cables and Similar Material Used in the
Fixed and Mobile Communication Infrastructure or the Networks.
http://www.udhb.gov.tr/images/kurumsal/ada13e832ed9c06.doc Downloaded: 8
Sept 2018 (Translation Required)
18. Regulation on Administration of Areas and Premises in the Possession of General
Directorate Highways, Turkey.
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/05/20180530-3.htm Accessed: 8 Sept
2018
19. Law on Organization and Duties of General Directorate of Highways, Turkey.
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2010/07/20100713-1.htm, Accessed: 29 Aug
2018.
20. International Leasing Agreement between BSNL of India and BSCCL of Bangladesh
June 2015 https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/BG15B2563.pdf
21. Broadband Infrastructure Report on South and West Asia submitted to UNESCAP
-
https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Broadband%20Infrastructure%20in%20
South%20and%20West%20Asia%20(draft)_0.pdf
22. Brief Report sent by General Manager, BSNL, Agartala and Chief General Manager
(NE1) BSNL Shillong.
Final Report
96 Acknowledgements
VIII. Acknowledgements
1. Mr K L Thapar, Asian Institute of Transport Development, Dwarka, New Delhi.
http://www.aitd.net.in/
2. Mr B N Puri, Asian Institute of Transport Development, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Consultant from China Highway Sector - Prof. Xiaojing WANG, Researcher, Director
of department, Deputy director-general, Chief-engineer, Research Institute of
Highway (RIOH), Ministry of Transport, Beijing, China. E-mail: WXJ
4. Consultant from Republic of Korea Highway Sector - Dr. Sang Yeon Hong, The
Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea. E-mail: [email protected].
5. Consultant from Republic of Korea Railway Sector - Mr. Oh-Joung Kwon, General
Manager Korea Rail Network Authority, Seoul, Republic of Korea. E-mail:
6. Consultant from Republic of Korea Deptt. Of Transportation - Dr HONG Sang Yeon.
7. Consultant from Russian Federation Highway Sector - Mr. Vladimir Kryuchkov,
President and CEO, ITS-Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail:
8. Consultant from Thailand both Highway & Railway Sectors - Capt. Tongkarn
Kaewchalermtong PhD, Civil Engineering Department, Chulachomklao Royal Military
Academy, Thailand. Email: [email protected], [email protected]
9. Consultant from Turkey Highway Sector - Mr Murat Dursun Barut, General
Directorate of Highways, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
10. Mr Anand Kumar Singh, Member Projects, NHAI, Dwarka, New Delhi.
11. Mr Mahavir Singh, Chief General Manager Tech, NHAI, Sector 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi.
12. Mr R P Singh, General Manager Project, NHAI, Ghaziabad, India.
13. Mr Sunil Bajpai, Senior Adviser TRAI, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi.
14. Mr Alok Ranjan, Add.Member CE, Railway Board, New Delhi.
15. Mr K D Lakhmani, General Manager, BSNL, New Delhi. ([email protected])
16. Mr H K Agarwal, Add. Member Telecom, Railway Board, New Delhi.
17. Mr Achal Jain, Executive Director (Land & Amenities), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi. ([email protected])
18. Mr Rajiv Chowdhary, SrED (Land & Amenities), Railway Board, New Delhi.
19. Mr U K Srivastava, Senior Adviser TRAI, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi.
20. Mr D Yadav, Deputy General Manager, PGCIL, New Delhi.
Final Report
97 Acknowledgements
21. Ms Shivalini Sinha, General Manager (Telecom Consultancy), TCIL, Greater Kailash,
New Delhi, India. ([email protected])
22. Mr P K Mandal, Adviser (Tele), TCIL, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. (mandalpk@tcil-
india.com)
23. Mr K Manohar Raja, Executive Director, RailTel Corporation of India Ltd, Gurugram,
India. ([email protected])
24. Mr Jitendra Kumar Goyal, Chief General Manager (Tech), NHAI, Dwarka, New Delhi.
25. Mr Ajay Kumar Sabharwal, General Manager (Tech), NHAI, Dwarka, New Delhi.
26. Mr R K Mishra, Ex Deputy Director General (DoT), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
27. Mr Pushkar, General Manager (GailTel), Noida, UP, India. ([email protected])
28. Mr B Chandra Sekhar, Chief General Manager, NE1 Circle, BSNL, Shillong
([email protected]) [For Cross Border Link with Bangladesh]
29. Mr Adbelmoula Ghzala, Lead Consultant (Former World Bank Staff), HMG
Management international, Washington DC USA. ([email protected]
30. Mr Ho Khek Hua, Deputy Under Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Malaysia.
31. Mr Varun Aggarwal, Superintending Engineer, MoRTH, Transport Bhawan, New
Delhi, India. ([email protected])
32. Mr Mohammad Shoaib, Director (Road Transport), Ministry of Communication,
Islamabad, Pakistan. ([email protected])
Final Report
98 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
IX. Survey Feedback - India & Other Countries
1. Consultants from China, India, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Thailand and Turkey
conducted studies on co-deployment experiences in their respective countries and submitted
their reports. As lead and coordinating consultant from the Asian Institute of Transport
Development (AITD) extracts from the national reports and survey results have also been
compiled and analysed to draw conclusions and recommendations.
1. Under this study, a survey, notified on 1st June 2018 was conducted to gather Information
about the status and practices of co-deployment in the member nations of the AH and TAR
Networks. The Survey Questionnaire was finalised by UNESCAP Secretariat and sent to the
member countries at the ministerial level to submit feedback by 20th July, 2018. These
countries are associated in the Asian Highway (32) and Trans-Asian Railway (28) Projects. The
Survey Questionnaire is on the subject of Co-deployment of OFC along the RoW of Highways
and Railways and the objective is to assess the position on deployment of OFC and the
multifarious issues linked with it so as to recommend policy and regulatory initiatives to the
Governments to Improve the Mobile Telephone and Broadband Penetration in the Rural
Hinterland and meet the SDGs laid down.
2. The Information collected through the Survey has been considered for drawing inferences
and serve as Input towards providing recommendations to the policy makers on the practical
implications, costs and benefits of cross-border co-deployments, facilitate Informed
decisions and enable the countries to take an integrated and mutually beneficial approach
to this issue. Survey Questionnaire was also effectively used by AITD for striking interaction
and for extracting details from various Government, Public Sector and Private Entities, which
are suitably incorporated in this Study Report. Summary analysis is appended below:
Sectors Responses Countries
Highways 12 10
Railways 9 8
Total 20 18 Responses (14 Countries)
3.
4. Question wise analysis, separately for Highway and Railway Sectors is reported below and
feedback/survey responses on co-deployment forwarded by UNESCAP Secretariat to the lead
consultant were studied, analysed and compiled separately for Highways and Railways.
5. Fourteen countries responded. Multiple responses were received from Philippines and
Thailand. A total of 10 responses on the Highway Sector and 7 from the Railway Sector were
received:
Final Report
99 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Highways Railways Both
1. Azerbaijan
2. Bhutan
3. China
4. Iran
5. Mongolia
6. Sri Lanka
7. Turkey
1. India
2. Korea (RoK)
3. Myanmar
4. Philippines - 2
5. Turkey
1. Bangladesh
2. Thailand: 3 Highway + 1
Railway
3. Russia
6.
7. Survey Results on Co-deployment of OFC along Highways are summarised below on each
of the questions stipulated:
Question No 1
Does your country have any experience related to co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway or railway routes? (Check all that apply) □ highway □ railway □ not sure □ Notes (Please specify)
Azerbaijan Highway
Bangladesh Highway, Railway
• Nationwide Telecommunication Transmission Network (NTTN) licensed operators are allowed to build maintain and operate fibre-optic cables.
• NTTN operators does not have any co-deployed fibre-optic cables among themselves.
• NTTN operators have experience of co-habitation of fibre-optics cables along the Highway and Bangladesh Railway.
Bhutan Highway
China Highway
Iran Highway
Mongolia Highway
Russia Highway
Sri Lanka Highway
Thailand Highway
Final Report
100 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Turkey Highway, Railway
Question No 2
Fibre-optic cables were laid □ along the highway or railway routes and within the right of way □ runs parallel to highway or railway routes but located outside the right of way □ only allowed crossing (in the transverse direction) of the route □ not sure □ directly buried and taken through pipes □ taken through concrete conduits □ Other (Please specify)
Azerbaijan All options ticked
Bangladesh Along highway/railway routes with RoW Along Highways, OFC are laid through High-density polyethylene (HPDE) duct only
Bhutan Rolled out fiber optic cables on utility power lines
China Along highway/railway routes with RoW and Directly buried with pipes
Iran Along highway/railway routes with RoW But it’s not all over the network
Mongolia Parallel to highway/railway without RoW
Russia Along highway/railway routes with RoW, Parallel to highway/railway without
RoW, only allowed crossing (in the transverse direction) of the route, directly buried with pipes Along roads outside the roadside, puncture menthod, tunneling, polyethylene case, angle of 90o
Sri Lanka Along highway/railway routes with RoW
Thailand Along highway/railway routes with RoW and Parallel to highway/railway without RoW
Final Report
101 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Turkey Along highway/railway routes with RoW and Directly buried with pipes
Question No 3
Co-deployment/ co-habitation is present in a total of approximately how many kilometres in your country along highway/ railway routes? □ total route distance in kilometres in the country □ approximate route distance in kilometres along the Right-of-Way □ total route distance planned/sanctioned/approved □ not known □ other (Please specify
Azerbaijan Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 1,790 KM
Bangladesh Total route distance in kilometres in the country =1,20,008 KM Ownership of OFC:Owners Route Distance (IN KM)
Fiber@Home Ltd. 41,238 Summit Communications Ltd. 39,761
Bangladesh Railway 2,421 BTCL 23,250 PGCB 5,549
Others (Mobile, PSTN, ISP) 7,789 Total 1,20,008
• There are No Co-deployments of OFC along Highways
• OFC owned by Bangladesh Railways along Railways are co-deployed
Bhutan Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 3,300 KM Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 3,300 KM
China Not known
Iran No data provided
Final Report
102 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Mongolia Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 15,231 KM
Russia Approximately 24800 KM of fibre-optic cables are laid along highway (in RoW and in the roadside)
Sri Lanka Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 113 KM
Thailand Not known
Turkey Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 2,700 KM
Total route distance planned/sanctioned/approved = 1,500 KM
Question No 4
Is there any local or national plan or policy in your country related to the provision of co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway or railway routes? If yes, please provide details
Azerbaijan No
Bangladesh • Guidelines for infrastructure sharing exists for NTTN operators to share the duct and/ or the trench
• Land management policy of Roads & Highways department, 2015 provides provision to use RHD land
Bhutan National Broadband Master Plan Implementation Project and Bhutan Telecommunication and 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 operated by state enterprise exists
• Support open access (Network neutrality)
• Efficiently utilize national infrastructure
Turkey National Broadband Strategy and Action plan (2017-2020)(UGSEP)
Final Report
103 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 6
Is there any local or national Law/ Ordinance/ Act/ Gazette/ legal coverage in your country related to the co-deployment/ co-habitation of fiber-optic cable(s) along highway or railway routes? If yes, please provide details
Azerbaijan No
Bangladesh Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Act, 2001
• Right to install any apparatus, thing or facility on, above or over any land for establishing a telecommunication system or for providing telecommunication service referred to as RoW
• RoW to operators on the land owned by the government or a local authority or statutory body.
Bhutan No
China No
Iran The law of the external roads
Mongolia No
Russia Yes
Sri Lanka No
Thailand Royal Ordinance (Right of Way) and Government gazette (Right of Way)
Turkey No
Final Report
104 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 7
Is the initial installation cost for deployment/co-habitation of fibre-optic cable shared among agencies/entities? If yes, how is this initial installation cost shared among agencies/entities? Cost of lease of right-of-way and repairs to highway/railway included. □ on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes □ on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables □ lumpsum amount per contract □ lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency/entity □ varies depending on the scope of work □ not shared among agencies/entities □ not sure
Azerbaijan on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables, lumpsum amount per contract, lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency/entity, varies depending on the scope of work
Bangladesh on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes, varies depending on the scope of work, not shared among agencies/entities
• NTTN operators and RHD don’t have co-deployed OFC
• NTTN operates have to deploy OFC on their own bearing all the cost for deployment or maintenance
• NTTN operators have experience of co-habitation of OFC along the Highway
Bhutan Cost borne by the Royal Government
China on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes, on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables, varies depending on the scope of work
Iran not shared among agencies/entities Shared by the Ministry of Information Technology
Mongolia Not sure
Russia lumpsum amount per contract, not shared among agencies/entities
Sri Lanka not shared among agencies/entities Individual ministry/entity have to bear the cost for initial installation
Final Report
105 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Thailand not shared among agencies/entities
• Each entity needs to get individual permit from Department of Highways
• Charge for usage of OFC located along highway is based on core KM
Turkey not shared among agencies/entities Institution does not make any payments, rather it receives an annual rent for the areas where fibre optics are founded.
Question No 8
How is the maintenance cost for co-deployment/ co-habitation of fiber-optic cables -shared among agencies/entities? □ on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes □ on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables □ lumpsum amount per contract □ lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency □ varies depending on the scope of work □ not shared among agencies/entities □ not sure
Azerbaijan on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables, lumpsum amount per contract, varies depending on the scope of work
Bangladesh on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes, varies depending on the scope of work, not shared
• NTTN operators does not have any co-deployed OFC hence no cost is being shared
• In co-habitation of OFC entire cost is beard by the NTTN operator
Bhutan Not shared among agencies/entities
China on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes, on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables, varies depending on the scope of work
Final Report
106 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Iran not shared among agencies/entities
Mongolia not sure
Russia on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables, lumpsum amount per contract, varies depending on the scope of work, not shared among agencies/entities
Sri Lanka not shared among agencies/entities
Thailand not shared among agencies/entities
Turkey not shared among agencies/entities
Question No 9
What are the benefits of co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway/ railway routes □ improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems - reduced project cost, faster deployment through “dig once, use many times” opportunities □ economically beneficial for a country - overall reduction in cost of transport and ICT Infrastructure deployment □ additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators □ financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities □ financially beneficial for all indicating a win-win situation □ enhanced sustainable development along with employment generation □ additional indirect benefits to the highway/ railway agency through ICT applications & connectivity
□ Improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of ITS related benefits
□ Improved road safety
□ Minimum disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom, Power etc.
□ other(s), please provide details
Azerbaijan improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, financially beneficial for all, additional indirect benefits to the highway/ railway agency
Final Report
107 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Bangladesh improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, Minimum disruption of transport services There are no co-deployments along the highways. The above benefits are based on the experience of co-habitation along the highways
Bhutan Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, financially beneficial for all, enhanced sustainable development along with employment generation
China improved efficiency of transport and ICT systems, additional and diversified revenue earnings, Improved road safety, minimum disruption of transport services
Iran economically beneficial for a country
Mongolia Improved traffic management and other benefits
Russia Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically
beneficial for a country, financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities, Improved traffic management and other benefits, Improved road safety All cables, infrastructure of highways, artificial structures are laid during construction, reconstruction of highways in the RoW or additionally arrange during major repair of highways the advantages of laying such cables to third parties are of social importance
Sri Lanka Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, Improved traffic management and other benefits, Improved road safety
Thailand Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, minimum disruption of transport services Financially beneficial to all stakeholders involved since the project implementation, operation and maintenance is paid for by the Royal Government. Fibers are leased to telecom and internet service providers free of cost
Turkey Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue earnings, enhanced sustainable development along with employment generation, financially beneficial for all, Improved traffic management and other benefits, Improved road safety
Final Report
108 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 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
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
Final Report
109 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
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
Question No 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 Neutral
China Favourable
Iran Very much favourable
Mongolia Neutral
Russia Neutral
Sri Lanka extremely favourable
Final Report
110 Survey Questionnaire 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
Question No 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.
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
Final Report
111 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Russia not sure
Sri Lanka only within the country
Thailand across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries, only within the country
Turkey only within the country
Final Report
112 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
8. Survey Results on Co-deployment of OFC along Railways are summarised below on each of
the questions stipulated:
Question No 1
Does your country have any experience related to co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway or railway routes? (Check all that apply) □ highway □ railway □ not sure □ Notes (Please specify)
Bangladesh Railway
India Highway
• Recently some ducts have been laid in newly constructed highway in india by NHAI, these ducts are for multiple use like water pipe line/ electric cable / OFC etc
• Some ducts for OFC have been laid in the form of HDPE pipe so that service provider can draw OFC through them by PGCIL in Varanasi, Kolkata.
Korea (RoK) Railway
Myanmar Railway Yangon – Mandalay Railway Line
Philippines Railway In railway route since the Philippine national railway entered into MoA on 07 April 1998 granting ETPI with the right to install, establish, maintain, own and operate for commercial purpose, an underground conduit and fiber optical cable system along PNR’s is RoW
Russia Railway
Thailand Railway The start shape network in the name of Com-Link but the project has expired at 31st March 2011
Turkey • There is not any coherence related to co-deployment of OFC b/w highway and railway in our country.
• Turkish Railways and Highways conduct there fiber optics operations separately
Final Report
113 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 2
Fibre-optic cables were laid □ along the highway or railway routes and within the right of way □ runs parallel to highway or railway routes but located outside the right of way □ only allowed crossing (in the transverse direction) of the route □ not sure □ directly buried and taken through pipes □ taken through concrete conduits □ Other (Please specify)
Bangladesh Along highway/railway routes with RoW and Directly buried with pipes
India Along highway/railway routes with RoW and only allowed crossing (in the transverse direction) of the route Only Railtel a PSU has been allowed to lay OFC along Railway routes within the RoW on revenue sharing basis.
Korea (RoK) Along highway/railway routes with RoW
Myanmar Along highway/railway routes with RoW Directly buried and not taken through pipes
Philippines Along highway/railway routes with RoW
Russia Along the highway or railway routes and within the right of way , runs parallel to highway or railway routes but located outside the right of way, only allowed crossing (in the transverse direction) of the route, directly buried and taken through pipes Suspended on contact network supports and high voltage power lines.
Thailand Along highway/railway routes with RoW
Turkey Directly buried and taken through pipes, taken through concrete conduits
Final Report
114 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 3
Co-deployment/ co-habitation is present in a total of approximately how many kilometres in your country along highway/ railway routes? □ total route distance in kilometres in the country □ approximate route distance in kilometres along the Right-of-Way □ total route distance planned/sanctioned/approved □ not known □ other (Please specify
Bangladesh Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 2,421 km Total route distance planned/sanctioned/approved = 2,421 km
India Within RoW of Railway by RailTel
Korea (RoK) Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 3,902 km
Myanmar Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 620 km
Philippines Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 62 km along PNR right of way.
Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 17 km along PNR right of way.
Russia Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 78,000 km Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 77,000 km
Thailand Approximate route distance in kilometres along the RoW = 4,300 km
Turkey Total route distance in kilometres in the country = 2,713 km Total route distance planned/sanctioned/approved = 3,941 km
Final Report
115 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 4
Is there any local or national plan or policy in your country related to the provision of co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway or railway routes? If yes, please provide details
Bangladesh • At present, Bangladesh Railway (BR) has total 2421 km Underground optical fiber cable (OFC) along rail route.
• Another 1000 km Underground optical fiber cables (OFC) will be laid within 3 /4 years.
• BR has NTTN license issued by BTRC (Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commissions) and using this license, BR is conducting Nationwide Telecommunication Transmissions Network (NTTN) business.
India At present there is no such policy, Reference a committee of Survey (CoS) headed by secretary, Telecom, Govt. of India is drafting a policy, which is yet to be finalized.
Korea (RoK) • Co-deployment of fiber-optic cables along Railway is provided for under the phased communication circuit Establishment plan which aims to equip 4934 km of railways with DWDM by 2020.
• Communication traffic required for Railway operation analyzed to form a nationwide double-ring backbone network.
Note: 1. DWDM (Dense wavelength Division Multiplexing) : Equipment
capable of transmitting data up to 400Gbps at 10Gbps per wavelength by dividing in to multiple wavelength bands.
2. Communications traffic: Amount of all information such as voice, data, and video transmitting through the communication networks.
Myanmar Yangon-Pyay railway line/ Bago-Mawlamyine- Ye- Dawei Railway line / Mandalay – Myitkyina Railway Line.
Philippines Data not available from PNR
Russia No
Thailand • The Design for fiber optics n/w of Railway with ministry of Transportation to use fiber optic with Highway, aeronautical, nautical Transportation and Ministry of Digital Economy and social to use fiber optic with nation broadband n/w.
• Today the project still under consideration of committee of Digital infrastructure are undertaken by permanent secretary of Ministry of Digital Economy.
Turkey National Broadband Strategy and Action Plan (2017-2020) (UGSEP)
Final Report
116 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 5
For co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables with the highway/ railway agency which type of other entity/ entities were involved. Do they have adequate capacity & capability to undertake such works/projects? Highway/ Railway agency + Capacity
□ one □ two □ more private-sector entity/ entities □ one □ two □ more public-sector entity/ entities □ two □ more public and private sector entities (mixed) □ not sure If other(s), please provide details
Bangladesh Bangladesh Railway laid OFC along the Railway routes by its own cost for its own use. Later on, BR started NTTN business buy taking government permissions.
India Two Public and Private-Sector entities (mixed). The present concept is that the Govt. of India will set up Common Duct Authority (COA), This Authority will lay down technical standards once process and ducting the Right of Way to various users in the duct for a period of 20-25 years on annuity basis
Korea (RoK) More than two Mixed entities
Myanmar Not Sure
Philippines One private-sector entity, more than two mixed entities In the case of PNR, only the ETPI was involved
Russia More than two private-sector entities
Thailand More than two public-sector entities
Final Report
117 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Turkey One private-sector entity Correspondence process with the Information and Communication Technologies Authority regarding leasing of the fiber-optics cables belonging to our undertaking TCDD is still going on. Necessary actions will be taken accordingly.
Question No 6
Is there any local or National Law/ Ordinance/ Act/ Gazette/ legal coverage in your country related to the co-deployment/ co-habitation of fiber-optic cable(s) along highway or railway routes? If yes, please provide details
Bangladesh Bangladesh Railways has made Co-deployment/ Co- habitation of OFC along the railway routes within the RoW following BR’s Rules & Regulation for its own telecommunication system and conducting business in accordance with term & conditions of NTTN licensed issued by BTRC.
India No
Korea (RoK) No However, agreement have been signed between KRNA (Korea Rail Network Authority) and telecommunication service providers (public & private sector entities: KT,SKT, LGU+, etc ) at their request to jointly deploy fiber optics cables along Railway. And each entity responsible for the deployment is also responsible for operation and maintenance of the installed fiber-optics cables.
Myanmar Myanmar Telecommunication Law
Philippines Data not available from PNR, Plz refer to DLCT
Russia Yes
Thailand NBTC and Ministry of Digital Economy and social.
Turkey No
Final Report
118 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 7
Is the initial installation cost for deployment/co-habitation of fibre-optic cable shared among agencies/entities? If yes, how is this initial installation cost shared among agencies/entities? Cost of lease of right-of-way and repairs to highway/railway included. □ on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes □ on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables □ lumpsum amount per contract □ lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency/entity □ varies depending on the scope of work □ not shared among agencies/entities □ not sure
Bangladesh Not shared among agencies/entities Underground Optical Fiber Cable has been laid along the Railway route by Bangladesh Railway at its own cost.
India Not sure This is yet to be decided.
Korea (RoK) On a kilometer of length basis for the fiber-optics cables, not sure Korea Rail Network Authority charges telecommunication service providers occupation and use fees for their fibre-optics cables pursuant to the State Property Management Standard.
Myanmar Not Sure
Philippines On a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes, lumpsum amount per contract
• In the case of PNR, the cost of deployment /co-habitation of fibre-optic cable is on a Km of length basis for the railway route or RoW fee.
• Only MRT3 shouldered the cost for FOC installation as this was part of the CCTV project and the another by the Dept of ICT installed FOC along the EDSA line for the free as they utilized the MRT3 RoW
Russia varies depending on the scope of work
Thailand varies depending on the scope of work
Turkey varies depending on the scope of work, not shared among agencies/entities Turkish state Railways meets the initial installation cost for deployment of fibre-optic cable by its own resources
Final Report
119 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 8
How is the maintenance cost for co-deployment/ co-habitation of fiber-optic cables -shared among agencies/entities? □ on a kilometre of length basis for the highway/ railway routes □ on a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables □ lumpsum amount per contract □ lumpsum amount per area/ subregion/ region of an agency □ varies depending on the scope of work □ not shared among agencies/entities □ not sure
Bangladesh Not shared among agencies/entities.
India Varies depending on the scope of work.
Korea (RoK) On a kilometre of length basis for the fibre-optic cables.
Myanmar Not Sure
Philippines Varies depending on the scope of work, not shared among agencies/entities. Not shared among agencies/ entities since ETPI shall provide free maintenance for the fiber optics for the duration of the agreement with PNR
Final Report
120 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Russia Varies depending on the scope of work
Thailand Varies depending on the scope of work
Turkey Not shared among agencies
Question No 9
What are the benefits of co-deployment/ co-habitation of fibre-optic cables along highway/ railway routes □ improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems - reduced project cost, faster deployment through “dig once, use many times” opportunities □ economically beneficial for a country - overall reduction in cost of transport and ICT Infrastructure deployment □ additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators □ financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities □ financially beneficial for all indicating a win-win situation □ enhanced sustainable development along with employment generation □ additional indirect benefits to the highway/ railway agency through ICT applications & connectivity
□ Improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of ITS related benefits
□ Improved road safety
□ Minimum disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom, Power etc.
□ other(s), please provide details
Bangladesh All options ticked
India Additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators, financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities and Minimum disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom, Power etc.
Final Report
121 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Korea (RoK) All options ticked
Myanmar Improve the Train operating and Communication System to get ensure safety facilities.
Philippines Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue earnings, additional and diversified revenue earnings, additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators, Improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of ITS related benefits Currently, fiber- optics laid within the right of way of PNR is not being utilized however it is written in the contract that PNR will have access to the 8 core fiber optics of ETPL.
Russia Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue earnings
Thailand Economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue
earnings, financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities, enhanced sustainable development along with employment generation , additional indirect benefits to the highway/ railway agency through ICT applications & connectivity, improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of ITS related benefits, improved road saftey and Minimum Disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom , Power etc. Protection network by highway and Railway cable Routes.
Turkey Improved efficiency of both transport and ICT systems, economically beneficial for a country, additional and diversified revenue earnings to transport agency from lease of unused bandwidth to telecom operators, financially beneficial only for some agencies/ entities, financially beneficial for all indicating a win-win situation, Improved traffic management and other benefits from wider application of ITS related benefits, Improved road safety, Minimum disruption of transport services by different utilities including Telecom, Power etc.
Final Report
122 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 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
Bangladesh Damage to fibre-optic cables during construction. Suggestion:- During Construction & maintenance of rail route, extra care should be taken by the concerned parties.
India Benefits are not clear, Safety and Security Hazard
• In India, efforts are being made to draft a common duct policy for inter-city and intra-city for various utilities.
• As such so far India doses not has much experience. It is just the start.
• Safety of long and wider duct is a big problem as such ducts are prone to be used by any social elements.
• The other view of financial vicinity of such projects, sharing of cost by the infrastructure providers and CDA is a yet to be discussed by CoS.
Korea (RoK) Coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy, main Infrastructure Entities not interested/convinced, Suggestions:- Government taking the initiative is important. That is, the government should take the initiative to provide legal grounds, formulate mid/long-term plans, and support step by step implementation.
Myanmar Damage to fiber- optic cables during construction Proper installation methodology should be used during the construction
Philippines Coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness, damage to fibre-optic cables during construction Damage to fiber-optic cables during construction. In PNR’s experience the fiber optic cables that is laid within the RoW were sometimes being damage by DPWH constructions.
Russia Lack of legal coverage, damage to fiber-optic cables during construction, safety hazard, security hazard, safety hazard
Final Report
123 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Thailand Coordination among agencies/ entities, planning is not easy, benefits are not clear/ lack of awareness
Turkey Coordination among agencies/ entities, lack of legal coverage, planning is not easy
Question No 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
Bangladesh Extremely favourable
India This is a new concept in India and don’t have any/much experience
Korea (RoK) Extremely favourable
Myanmar Neutral
Philippines Favourable, extremely favourable Fiber-optics laid within the RoW of PNR is not being utilized however it is written in the contract that PNR will have access to the 8-core fiber-optics of ETPI
Russia Favourable,
Thailand Neutral
Turkey Very much favourable
Final Report
124 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Question No 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)
Bangladesh Only within the country and does not reach the border
India Only within the country and does not reach the border
Final Report
125 Survey Questionnaire Feedback
Korea (RoK) Only within the country does not reach the border.
• In 1996, the 52th UNESCAP “Infrastructure Ministerial Meeting”
adopted a resolution stating, “We will make top priority for the restoration of the Railway on the peninsula (TKR; Trans-Korean Railway)”
• TKR route 1: total length of 945 km through Busan-Seoul-Kaesong-Pyongyang-Shinujiu has a problems of crossing the border.
• With the inter-Korean summit in June 2000, the reconstruction work for the Gyeongui Line was initiated and a railway on the Korean peninsula was connected. During this reconnections, fiber-optic cables were jointly deployed along the reconstructed Gyeongui Line linking Dorasan and Gaeseong
Myanmar Only within the country and does not reach the border
Philippines Only within the country and does not reach the border, Not Sure
Russia Across the border of the neighboring country/ countries at border crossing points, within the country but at least in one case extends up to the border
Thailand Across the border of the neighboring country/ countries at border crossing points SRT and KTMB have been linkage both: telephone network. But expired with com-link periode.
Turkey Across the border of the neighbouring country/ countries at border crossing points Greece and Bulgaria
DRAFT Final Report
126 Annexures
rail wire