International Telecommunication Union   ITU
Site Map Contact us Print Version
 Tuesday, 10 April 2007

 Dear Mr. Kawasumi,

  As far as USO policy in India is concerned, initially the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) was providing support for public access through Village Public Telephones (VPTs), Rural ommunity Phones (RCPs) and individual access through provision of individual household telephones (RDELs) i.e. basic services. Recently, the Government is working to provide support for creation of infrastructure for provision of mobile services in specified rural and remote areas. In addition, USO policy also intends to support provision of e-governance and other data services to the rural masses. For the same a proposal is under consideration of the Government to provide subsidy support for Broadband connectivity in rural and remote areas of the country in phased manner by utilizing the infrastructure created for provision of mobile services. The broad parameters under which the connectivity is required to be provided are being worked out.


  2.         In India, the Corporates, State Governments and NGOs have launched several rural initiatives based on latest ICTs and of different scales. Some pilot projects carried out in rural areas of India include the following:

              (a)       Profit Driven Projects:

                         Ø      ITC e-chaupal  
                         Ø      N-Logue   
                         Ø      Drishtee (using existing telecom infra-structure)

              (b)       Grant/aid driven:

                        Ø      MS Swaminathan Center (in Pondichery,  focused on agriculture and fishing applications).   
                        Ø      Tara-haat (focus on rural enterprises)   
                        Ø      Akshaya (in Kerala with Government support).   
                        Ø      Gyandoot (in M.P. with focus on e-Governance)- operated by n-Logue.   
                        Ø      Rural e-Seva (in East Godavari District of AP with focus on e-governance)   
                        Ø      Warana Village (in Maharashtra  by NIC) ? operated by n-Logue

              (c)        Application Development initiatives:

                       Ø      Bhoomi

              (d)       State Government driven:

                       Ø      Andhra Pradesh Broadband Network ? Broadband connectivity available across the state 
? for offices, institutions and homes 
? at affordable costs.

  3.         In these pilot projects the main services that are being provided include the following:

           (a)   Information about agricultural product  
           (b)   market information 
           (c)   weather information  
           (d)   e-education  
           (e)   e-medicine  
           (f)    exam results   
           (g)   e-payments   
           (h)   video conferencing   
           (i)    cyber chatting   
           (j)    ecommerce   
           (k)   email   
           (l)    voice mail   
           (m)  e-governance, etc.

Best regards  Sapna


On 4/9/07, KAWASUMI Yasuhiko  wrote:

 Dear Ms. Sharma,

    I think your message is based on the real policy and its practice.
    Thank you for your useful input. We would like to know what e-services are aimed for the rural and remote areas in India and Pakistan or implemented.

Regards.     Kawasumi

Tuesday, 10 April 2007 04:16:58 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, 09 April 2007

Dear Mr. Bharti,

I agree with Mr. Gupta. When I visited rural village centers in India two years ago,rural intreprueners explained to me that video-conferencing through the MCT
facilitieswere pupular service among the village people. 256Kbps may be more confortable forthe users than 128 for the image or video transmission( video-conferencing,
medicalconsultation services, and tele-education services etc).



Dear Mr. Bhatti,

Though 128KBPS for rural area may be a goodbeginning,it cannot support Video(Entertanment) aswell as e-learning which are considered to be veryimportant applications to make the Broadbandaffordable as well as popular in rural areas. also any mandate for lower speeds in rural areas vis-a-vis urban may widen the digital divide further. For consideration please.

Satyen Gupta

Monday, 09 April 2007 14:16:12 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [2]  | 

Dear all,

     1.         In India, Broadband policy 2004 defines Broadband connectivity as an  'always-on' data connection that has the capability of the minimum download speed of 256 kilo bits per second (kbps) to an individual subscriber.

     2.         As per commission of the European communities "Digital divide forum report: Broadband access and public support in under-served areas"   dated 15.07.2005:

      Speeds in rural areas tend to be lower than average. Download speeds between 144 kbps and 512 kbps have been the most common speeds rural users have subscribed to in the past two years (55-56% of users).

       At the national level, in July 2004 the percentage of subscriptions to this bracket of speeds is down to 39%, and a similar percentage is registered for speeds up to 1 Mbps. Since 2003, at the national level, the share of low speeds has been declining, while higher speeds above 1 Mbps have increased their share. The share of high speeds in rural areas has remained overall constant.

Best regards  Sapna

Monday, 09 April 2007 03:48:49 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Saturday, 07 April 2007

Dear Mr.Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti,

Too, I fully agree with Hendrik Prins, your definition seem very realistic and deserve to be studied in depth

Yours sincerely  Michel LEMAITRE


Dear Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti

This is a realistic entry point in my view (same as 2x64 ISDN).

Regards  Hendrik Prins   Australia


Dear All,

High data rates provision for rural areas is a bottleneck for rural areas as these areas lack in back bone facilities and content requirement is also limited. Keeping in view these constraints, Pakistan has defined 128 kbps always on connection as broad band which will meet most of the requirements/applications of rural areas.
Regards,  Mushtaq Ahmad Bhatti  Director Telecom,  Ministry of IT

Saturday, 07 April 2007 14:40:20 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Sunday, 01 April 2007

It seems to me that we are getting things a little out of order here and that is creating a problem.

I believe the situation is quite straight forward. User requirements are established first whether they be for individuals, households, businesses, Government entities, Hospitals, schools etc.

These requirements will vary greatly depending on the services and applications sought under a host of different scenarios depending on location, level of economic development and will tempered by the ability to fund/pay.  We can try to determine a set of so called typical scenarios to be used for modelling and then do some straw man technical solutions and costing.  If the network architecture is to be based on a shared and thus contended access model, we need to start from average date rates to dimension the network and then depending on the traffic flow dynamics make some predictions about likely peak data rates for individual connections.

There is nothing new in any of this. Thousands of networks have already been deployed in rural areas based on wireless to offer voice and more recently higher speed packet data access. Whether these or future ones are deemed broadband or not is a moot point and not even very important as long as the user needs are satisfied in my view. Furthermore how all this actually relates to NGN in a practical  is still not even certain in my mind.

The above view are based on nearly 40 years of practical and theoretical experience in wireless communications, including intimate involvement with wireless broadband network system design and deployment in rural areas.

For consideration  by the group.

Regards   Hendrik

Sunday, 01 April 2007 01:11:07 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Hendrik, Michel:
I agree that everyone should be very careful before drawing any conclusions from our discussions on this forum. We are in a very early stage in the deployment of broadband in rural areas, and it is not even clear what questions need to be asked - let alone answered - in order to provide a foundation for decisions at many levels. Ashok's suggestion to set targets for average or effective bandwidth rather than  peak rates helps define the policy question in a certain direction, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions in my mind about what the implications of such an approach would be in terms of cost and feasibility.
I think that discussions like this are useful for bridging the gap between technical standards debates (particularly in ITU fora) and more practical considerations such as: what are the actual service features that rural populations experience using this infrastructure, what are the service models through which broadband is reaching or will reach the end user, and how do we abstract the economic and cost principles behind infrastructure deployment that are needed by policymakers to make choices about how to allocate limited resources.
As for Michel's objection to my relaying an anecdote from a vendor about product functionality, I purposely did not mention the vendor's name or product line so there could be no question of promoting commercial interests. A lot of people have practical questions about what today's commercial technology can offer LDCs. An informed consumer has the best chance of protecting their own interests!
Regards,  Rebecca

Sunday, 01 April 2007 01:06:42 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

dear all,

I fully agreed with Hendrik point of view: the most important point is this of users not vendors!!  it is not a commercial forum; we are required for helping the LDC !!!

Regards and good week end!

michel lemaitre

Sunday, 01 April 2007 01:03:13 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Saturday, 31 March 2007

Rebecca                                                                                               (re: starting input)

I respectfully disagree with the statements from the vendor re guarantees for end users unless the configuration is a point to point link using one of the WiMAX profiles. In fact I find that this whole debate lacks technical rigour and the conclusions arrived at need to be carefully scrutinised.

Regards  Hendrik

Saturday, 31 March 2007 12:45:09 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, 29 March 2007

I am following the discussions and finding them very interesting. In Brazil we are trying to solve the problem of rural communications in two ways:

a) with 3G technology, by putting an obligation to the operators to cover all the 5 560 brazilian cities that have elected mayor, most of them with less then 30.000 inhabitants;
b) with WiFi and WiMax, by giving mayoral lycenses to operate telecommunications services in their region.

Perhaps we manage to implemente both solutions until the end of this year.

Vilmar R. Freitas
Anatel - Brazil

Thursday, 29 March 2007 01:37:25 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

                                                                                                           (re: starting input)

Dear Colleagues                                                                               

Yes as with moth things unfortunately there are significant technical limits to the amount of BW that can be offered and they are governed by the air interface and spectrum availability and other factors and off course there is a cost and it is certainly not minimal!

Regards  Hendrik


Dear Mr. Magodo,

Thank you for your comments on the reqjuirements for data rate of broadband in rural and remote areas.

Re your points raised, we are discussing minimum data rate needed for e-applications or services in rural areas. If you have experiences with regards to the limitations(technically or legally) of data rate and its cost implications in Zimbabwe or in any other African countries?

Regards. Kawasumi

Thursday, 29 March 2007 01:27:33 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 


I have been following the issue of bandwidth requirements for rural areas The questions that come to mind are;

1.    Are there any technical limitations in providing the maximum available bandwidth?  The choice of how much bandwidth is used should be left to the customer¹ applications and needs.

2.    Is there any additional cost and how much if bandwidth is limited to 256 Kbits/s or 2 Mbits/s?  Most of the systems or solutions are modular and I believe if any additional cost is involved it should be minimal. Some of the so called rural areas have a propensity for high bandwidth e.g. to access markets where they an sell their produces; download information on how to improve on their agriculture efficiency and output.  I think we should be able to provide adequate bandwidth to meet the customers needs.
Regards  G. Magodo, POTRAZ

Thursday, 29 March 2007 00:28:54 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Dear Mr Kawasumi

My gut feeling based on my own experience and working in rural areas is that a target average user data rate of 256 Kbps symmetric if possible is very effective. This is a personal opinion but one close to what some operators aim for (rural Australia with Telstra for instance have indicated this figure).

Regards   Hendrik

On 29/3/07 1:00 AM, "KAWASUMI Yasuhiko" wrote:

Dear Rebecca, Ashok and Hendric,

What is your observation on the minimum requirements for broadband considering the needs of users for e-applications and services in rural areas. Copper wire, optic fiber and PLC are being deployed for the last mile in the collected case studies.

Regards.   Kawasumi

Thursday, 29 March 2007 00:04:55 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Wednesday, 28 March 2007


I agree with Ashok. It is simply not possible for a vendor to make guarantees about user peak data rates as this is a function  of the manner in which the access and other parts of the network are operated. At best average date rates can be calculated based on a set of assumptions regarding air interface performance, number of users, location of users, typical RF path conditions etc. As to what that average user figure should be ­ well it depends on the user requirements and ability to pay and  both will change over time.

Best regards,  Hendrik

Wednesday, 28 March 2007 13:32:04 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

Agreed Rebecca. It is possible in today's system to ensure average bit-rate to each user.
But there are many issues:

1. Given a certain spectrum, total bit-rate in a cell in a WiMax is determined by several factors, including distance of subscribers form base station and the interference that is present from neighboring cells and sectors.
2. After this the total bit-rate available is divided into users in the cell and sector.
3. Therefore average bit-rate available to each user is complex and would depend on deployment conditions.
4. What the vendors often specify is the peak rate, rather than this.

We have to be careful with that number. What I have been saying is that while specifying the bit-rate that we want in a village, we should talk about minimum average bit-rate. I would be happy if this is 256 kbps today, though I know we could aim for 1 Mbps in four to five years.


Wednesday, 28 March 2007 09:15:17 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

A note of follow-up on the topic of whether there is a added cost to guarantee minimum bandwidth when total bandwidth is shared:

I discussed this question with a wireless broadband vendor in regard to their current Wimax products. The functionality to guarantee the bandwidth rate for each end user terminal is built into the WiMax base stations. There need not be any extra cost for that functionality in the access portion of the wireless broadband network. To implement similar bandwidth regulation at the level of the backbone or core data network, one might need to install some additional boxes. However, the cost would
not be significant as a percentage of backbone/core network costs.

Note that we were discussing a carrier-grade Wimax system. If in the future there are consumer-grade Wimax systems in unlicensed bands like WiFi today, I suspect you may not get the functionality of bandwidth regulation at the low end of the market. Likewise, if a Wimax end user (such as a telecenter) resells their service using WiFi or cable to distribute access locally, the Wimax network operator would no longer be able to control the quality of service for the final users.


Wednesday, 28 March 2007 09:11:33 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Dear Mr. Satyen Gupta,

Thank your feedback. I should modify my input from requirement of broadbnad data rate to minimum requirement for broadband for the use in rural and remote areas taking into account the NGN or e-applications.


Tuesday, 27 March 2007 09:05:49 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Monday, 26 March 2007

                                                                                                             (re: starting input)

As technology changes, data rates will keep changing. The other day, 64 kbps dedicated would have been considered great. Now we look for 256 kbps and tomorrow 2 mbps and perhaps 10 Mbps. Urban will always have greater. The key is to get it to all rural areas at some affordable cost. I would say 256 kbps in next two to three years will be great. One can always take multiple connection rather than one, if one needs more.

Also once again, I am writing about focusing on peak data rates Vs average. We need an average of 256 kbps (or what I said dedicated). Let us avoid situations where the peak is 256 kbps and average is under 100 kbps.


Monday, 26 March 2007 10:25:16 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Dear Friends,                                                                                       (re: starting input)

It is good to follow the philosphy of :Great is enemy of Good:, and hence settle for lower data rates for rural area but this my lead to what I will like to call :Data Rate-Divide:

In our efforts to bridge the digital- divide,we should not create the Generation-Gap between rural and urban. Therefore I will suggest that we whould not attempt to dilute the data rate requirement for rural area,specially such connections will be shared by many users and also wireless technologies now are capable of delivering 2 MBPS and above.


Monday, 26 March 2007 03:50:39 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Thursday, 22 March 2007

Dear All,                                                                                                  (ref: starting input)

Dr. Tim Kelly's essay in Maitland + 20 Book published for the WSIS2005 for the 20th anniversary of Maitland Report "Missing Link" pointed out the following;
 One of the features evident in comparing the average level of Internet penetration and mobile phone penetration in the developing world, as shown in Fig2, is that the level of development is broadly equivalent to that reached in the developed countries arond five years earlier. By contrast, the average level of fixed-line penetration in developing countries at the end of 2003( just over one for every ten inhavitants), was reached in the developed world as long ago as the 1960s.  This suggests that the process of "catch up" is occuring much more rapidly among newer services than for older ones. But it also suggests that the developing world's strongly expressed preference for mobile phones over fixed line systems is likely to put the brakes on Internet development in the near future. That is because the vast majority of the world's Internet users still use copper-bassed fixed-line technologies (e.g. dial-up, ISDN, DSL, cable modems) to access the Internet. Internet access from wireless devices is certainly possible (e.g. through so-called "third generation" mobile or through wireless LAN), but it is still quite expensive and in the case of wireless LANs, has only limited range. These constraints are solvable, but there may well be a period of years during which the further development of the Internet in some developing regions of the world is slowed by the absence of a dense copper-based network.

Taking into account the above, this group could figure out the table of present availbale last mile technologies and throughput data rate for developing countries for consideration of rural commiunications. NTT of Japan or major carriers is now promoting FTTH instead of DSL thinking of the future better services. In the mean time, WSIS Plan of Actions says in B "Objectives, Goals and Targets" item 6,
    to connect villages---,
    to connect universities---,
    to connect scientific and research centres ---,
    to connect health centres and hospitals---
    to conncet all local and central government departments and establish website and e-mail addresses etc. by using ICTs.
The target date of the achievemnet of Information Society envisaged by the WSIS is by 2015.

Yasuhiko KAWASUMI Rapporteur for Q10

Thursday, 22 March 2007 03:04:55 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Mr Kawasumi and Samantha                                               (ref: starting input)

I agree with Samantha and fail to see why se believe we should become prescriptive on the user data rate issue. It is in any event not practical because as I have pointed out nearly all the data access networks the user data rates are determined by the manner in which these contended networks are managed by the operator.

Best regards

Hendrik Prins

Thursday, 22 March 2007 02:57:01 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Wednesday, 21 March 2007

                                                                                           (ref: starting input)

Ashok raises a very interesting point for discussion - actually two points. One is the tradeoff between putting one's universal service dollars into coverage or capacity, i.e. 256 Kbps for every village rather than 2 Mbps for the top 20%. The other is the tradeoff between service quality and bandwidth sharing (such as the situation in which average throughput is less than 5% of the 2 Mbps max data rate).

With regard to the first tradeoff, policymakers need to know if they can achieve the broad-based 256 Kbps coverage for the same cost as the smaller scale, higher bandwidth option. Assuming public investment funds are limited, which they always are, are there network configurations that would allow very broad coverage cost effectively? This is a timely question for me as my group is still working on developing the broadband infrastructure costing estimates. I'll report back to the group if/when we have any results to shed light on this question.


Wednesday, 21 March 2007 03:11:09 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [2]  | 

                                                                                                            (ref: starting input)

I agree with Craig. 256 kbps dedicated link is better many times as compared to 2 Mbps peak rate (and where average rate can fall below 100 kkbps). For a village, 256 kbps is a great beginning. I would aim for this to be achieved in every village in the next three years, rather than 2 Mbps in 10 to 20% of villages.


Wednesday, 21 March 2007 03:00:06 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

                                                                                                             (ref: starting input)

Thank you Mr. Kawasumi for posting this question to the e-discussion on Broadband Access. I am looking forward to hearing the various viewpoints from developing country representatives.

While I agree that the 2Mbps is an ideal data rate that is being supported by various BWA technologies as well as copper/fiber in rural areas today, these data requirements can at times be too demanding, and we should try to look at each developing country's requirements individually. There have been several compelling applications supported by 2G technologies that are transforming the socio-economic conditions for several people in underserved communities (The Grameen Bank's Village Project project is an excellent example ), and we should consider carefully about placing a high data rate requirements on developing countries in general as we must take into account overall economic development and recognize that successful projects that have been supported by lesser data rates.

Other than these few comments, I leave it up to representatives of developing countries to engage in this discussion and give their viewpoints on the topic laid out before us.
Thank you,

Samantha Craig

Wednesday, 21 March 2007 02:52:12 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

                                                                                                            (ref: starting input)

I am not sure what the relationship (if any) is between broadband and 2G mobile telephony?

Second point re the definition of broadband this has been disused in other groups also and while we may have an ITU definition in the real commercial world it is not so straightforward and not just a technical question or issue in my view. The fact is that whether it is ADSL, Cable, Fibre, BWA, IMT or whatever access the user ³broadband² experience is up to the operator
and how the shared resource is managed. I expect the user will judge the result and as long as there is competition user expectations will most likely be met.

For consideration by the group.

Hendrik Prins Australia


Wednesday, 21 March 2007 02:46:52 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Dear e-discussion group members,

I am very pleased to know that reecently there were active debates on the capability of WiMax technology by Ms. Rebecca Mayer's input. You may visit  the following ITU-D website for the Rapporteur's Group Q10-2/2 documents for the forthcoming meeting 26-27 March, in Bandung, Indonesia . <> You will find the Document RGQ10-2/2/028-E (Intel) on the WiMax techonology.

At this time, I would like to raise the question on "the requirements for broadband in rural and remote areas of developing countries."  Bit rate of 2Mbps is ideal for the internet-style services to be provided over the infrastructure offered by the Wireless(WiMax) or copper/fiber cables in rural areas. 2G mobile phone services now penetrating in most of the developing countries may not meet this requirements. I would like to seek the comments of e-discusion members on this subject. Facilitator Ms. GRAIG Samantha may lead the debate on this subject..

Yasuhiko KAWASUMI  Rapporteur for Q10-2/2

Tuesday, 20 March 2007 02:35:56 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Friday, 16 March 2007

Dear Rebecca,                                              (see: starting input)

WiMAX is a broadband wireless technology that supports fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile access. WiMAX is a standards-based technology enabling the delivery of last mile wireless broadband access. WiMAX will provide fixed, nomadic, and portable and eventually, mobile wireless broadband connectivity without the need for direct line-of-sight with a base station.

As per the available information, WiMAX, due to its OFDM technology, is optimized to provide excellent Non-Line-Of-Site (NLOS) coverage (up to 15 Km around the base station) and long range transmission up to 50Km in LOS conditions.

With Regards

Friday, 16 March 2007 12:41:59 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Thursday, 15 March 2007

Thanks Rebecca                                                (see: starting input)

Another solution I have heard of is 'Tier WiFi'  ot WiLD NET from a team
led by Prof Eric Brewer..

For resources on it see:


Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:37:34 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

Hi All,                                                              (see: starting input)

 We should use the right technologies for applications.

 IEEE developed 802.11 and 802.16 standards as complementary to each other.

 -IEEE developed 802.11 WLAN standards (common name is Wi-Fi) for local area network applications). This technology brings solution for WLAN areas (today we are using typically at house, office and hotspots). This technology brings a solution for Local Area Networking.

 -IEEE developed 802.16 (WiMAX) standards for the deployment of broadband Wireless Metropolitan Area Network applications. (outside the coverage area of WLAN network).

 Today certified WLAN products ( <> ) available for local area applications and certified WiMAX products ( are ready for fixed/nomadic broadband wireless applications. Certified mobile WiMAX products will be available this year.

Please see below information from IEEE web site.

802.11? Working Group for Wireless Local Area Networks The IEEE 802.11 specifications are wireless standards that specify an "over-the-air" interface between a wireless client and a base station or access point, as well as among wireless clients. The 802.11 standards can be compared to the IEEE 802.3? standard for Ethernet for wired LANs. The IEEE 802.11 specifications address both the Physical (PHY) and Media Access Control (MAC) layers and are tailored to resolve compatibility issues between manufacturers of Wireless LAN equipment.


The IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access Standards develops standards and recommended practices to support the development and deployment of broadband Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks.


 Turhan Muluk,  Intel Corporation

Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:35:42 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

Hello Sean                                                       (starting input)

WiMAX is based on IEEE 802.16 which is an open standard. The nomadic version is already supported by an ITU-R Recommendation and many vendors offer moderately priced equipment that meets the specification so this should not be an issue even for Cambodia. P2P 50 Kms and P2MP 15 Kms is a challenge but not impossible provided the RF path conditions can support the link losses (a question of RF planning).

I have wide experience in deploying such systems an various parts of the world and can offer some help if needed.

Hendrik Prins

Thursday, 15 March 2007 03:13:59 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

                                                       (see: starting input)                                                  

I have the following information on this:

Typical power consumption for a BSNL (for an operator): For GSM cell site,
7.5 kVA.

Typical power consumption for a TTSL (an Indian operator): For CDMA, 12 to
15 kVA.

There is a low cost GSM Base station designed by Midas for Rural applications. It has a single Trx catering to about 150 subscribers in 2Km range village coverage. For this BTS, the power consumption per TRX is 15W. No air conditioning is required.

Ashok jhunjhunwala

Thursday, 15 March 2007 03:10:35 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 

I got two of my colleagues to answer this:       (see: starting input)

 Dr. Koilpillai wrote:

 The range issue is tricky.

 WiMAX has many variables. Even if we assume 5 MHz bandwidth, carrier frequency 3.5 GHz, we still need to know the antenna type that is used (WiMAX has Transmit Diversity support, and receive diversity can always be employed). Further, based on channel conditions, the modulation is adapted BPSK-QPSK-16QAM-64QAM along with FEC options. So, each modulation level will have a range. Usually max range calculations are done with BPSK/QPSK. Probably the biggest impact will be inter-cell interference in a dense multi-cell deployment. Range calculations based on stand-alone cells will be very optimistic compared with multi-cell scenarios, but that may have been done since it states "rural environment". In short, we will need to know the specific assumptions for the different parameters in order to give a reasonable estimate of range.


 DR. Bhaskar Ramamurthi wrote:

 Range of Wimax can be possibly higher if the links are LOS. They have typically 10W - 20W power in 5-10 MHz, ten times the power of corDECT on a per Hz basis. However, the issue is what is the range when it is NLOS link, or near LOS link. This will depend on the height of the antenna on the subs side.

 I think it is safe to assume that the range will be similar to that of CDMA 3g1x (similar power but 4-8 times BW in Wimax, but maybe better coding etc can help maintain the range despite this). Another thing: just as in CDMA when the range appears to be higher when there is light loading, this will happen in Wimax also. "Light loading"

here is defined not as "one or two users", but throughput being a small fraction of capacity. Basically all the power is loaded on a few sub-carriers and the range improves. Once the throughput goes up (either to one or two users, or a large number of them), the range will drop.

Further, the QPSK/64QAM issue. This makes the range reduction when throughput increases even worse, since the system will go from QPSK on a few sub-carriers to QAM on all sub-carriers!

Ashok jhunjhunwala

Thursday, 15 March 2007 02:59:10 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  | 
 Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Dear all,                                                      (staring input)

 My colleague, Denny, wrote:

 ?According to our trial experience, the longest distance we achieve was 32 km for PMP configuration in Bandung Area using 3,5 GHz band and LOS condition. For NLOS the result depend on the environment, in the experiment 5.8 km can be achieved?.



Wednesday, 14 March 2007 03:17:10 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

Hi Everyone                                                 (starting input)

I too would like an answer to this.

Funded by IDRC, we are right now putting out to tender the construction of
two community owned networks in Cambodia to provide voice (VoIP) as well as
WiFi networking in two rural areas.  The difficult bit is, in each
pilot,  connecting multiple (up to 15) wifi nodes (each with PCs and
surrounding VoIP handsets) that are up to 15 kilometers apart (though we
could also do with 50Kms distance links to the nearest backbone - looks
like we will have to use satellite).  So we nee PMP high bandwidth up to 15
Kms, or P2P minimum 50ms - but low cost and easy to maintain, good in
tropical weather etc.

So far the tenders have suggested something called Trango, an old
proprietary system that can carry up to 10Mbits.  I would prefer to use an
open standards (well nearly, for Wimax) and something that is much cheaper.

Problem is specifying what we need and also getting someone to build it  -
instantly, next week! -  in Cambodia.

If people want to know about our work there (as well as comparable work as
the design, not build stage, in East Africa I can let them
know.  Background report is at: .

People talk so much about these technologies but actually implementing them
in some remote corner in a different question, as I am discovering!

I am not even sure what list this is (ITU Question 10?), but I am adding
two of our key people in Cambodia to this cc.  Brian Unger and Chea Sok Huor.


Wednesday, 14 March 2007 03:05:06 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 

Question about WiMax range

Theoretical reports on WiMax claim that ranges of up to 50km can be supported by the technology. What ranges are existing field implementations of pre-mobile WiMax base stations actually achieving in rural areas? This technology has begun to be deployed in a few places in Africa, and many countries are considering it. For example, there are reports of a WiMax operator in Nigeria called Startech Connections, Wikipedia lists a few more in Congo (DRC), Nigeria and South Africa.

Real-World WiMax Base Station Ranges in Rural Areas:

Source of report
PMP (rural)
3.5 GHz
5km NLOS
15 km LOS

Alcatel White Paper 2004 :

PTP (used as backhaul)
3.5 GHz

What is the maximum realistic range of WiMax today in PMP and PTP configurations? Range is critical to cost-effectiveness in sparsely populated rural areas.


Rebecca Mayer

Wednesday, 14 March 2007 02:51:45 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [2]  | 

Dear Q.10 e-discussion participants:

It is good to see many familiar names and quite a few new ones on the Q.10 discussion list. I would like to raise a number of questions that touch on multiple discussion topics, and would appreciate responses from all corners.  While the issues are broadly relevant to rural communications, I am particularly interested in experiences from sub-Saharan African countries. I
will split up the questions to one topic per email, so that recipients can select strands to follow or delete based on the Subject line.

The context is a forecasting exercise for the World Bank, led by Winrock International, to estimate ICT infrastructure investment requirements for 24 sub-Saharan countries. We've created a model that looks at population distribution and terrain to estimate wireless infrastructure requirements. The model includes the cost of fuel to run base stations off diesel generators in areas lacking access to the electricity grid. We are using this information to examine the impact of fuel costs on the sustainability of cell sites in rural areas, and to try to quantify estimates of the levels of public subsidy that may be needed under different scenarios.

The following are the assumptions on which we are currently basing our fuel costs:

Typical power consumption of GSM 900 cell site (including all on-site
equipment and air conditioning) = 18 kW

Typical size of diesel generator = 26 kW

Operating assumptions: 24 hours/day, 365 days/year

Liters of diesel fuel consumed annually = 57,634

(Annual fuel consumption was estimated by running assumptions 1-3 in NREL?s
HOMER simulation engine.)

Can anyone confirm or improve the accuracy of these assumptions?

Rebecca Mayer
Program Officer, Winrock International

Wednesday, 14 March 2007 02:29:20 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [0]  | 
 Monday, 08 January 2007

Dear ITU-D SG2 Rapportuer?s Group Q10-2/2 members,

A Happy New Year and Best Wishes for 2007 to all of you.

By the kind invitation of Indonesian Administration, RGQ10-2/2 will hold the meeting in Badung 26-27 March 2007 together with the workshop on ?disaster communications? 28 March, and RGQ22-2/2 on ?disaster communications? 29-30 March.

Taking this opportunity , I would like to invite you to actively participate in the e-discussion which was approved by the last ITU-D SG2 meeting in autumn 2006. Also I would encourage you to contribute case studies to the forthcoming meeting using the format in the following ITU-D website as approved by the said SG2 meeting. Your input could make the forthcoming meeting productive and beneficial. Indonesian Administration is now collaborating with BDT for facilitating as many delegates as possible to participate in the meeting including provision of fellowship for the LDC participants.

The following is the new arrangements to facilitate the e-discussion members to participates in the e-discussion on 10 different topics authorized by the SG2 meeting(Ref. SG2 and RGQ10 report ). Mr. Yukio Miyoshi(contracted consultant with the BDT e-strategy unit) and myself in collaboration with IT department of BDT and under the support of Mr. Alexander Ntoko are promoting e-discussion according to the work plan of the Q10-2/2 for the period of 2006-2010.

Q10 Group has the web log page at since last year. Some of the participants to E-discussion might find using the web log not appropriate for their working environment. Access speed to the internet is insufficient, or may not check the web log pages frequently.

We established a E-mail distribution address,, for automatic distributions of your inputs to all participants. These inputs could be a simple opinion, an input to be posted on the Weblog, or any other e-mail, so long as those documents are supposed to be read by the E-discussion participants. Please do not send e-mails which are personal or intended to be received by the part of the E-discussion group, because the redistribution of your e-mail through is automatic.

E-mails thus sent to the above address will be distributed to the current participants of about 70 people, including your e-mail address. The contents will be later posted on the Q10 web log page by administrator (Mr. Miyoshi). If these automatic mails should be sent to your different E-mail address or if you prefer not to receive it, please let me know at

This new feature will supplement the Weblog functions for easy confirmation of what discussion is going on. Also we expect this facilitates exchange of opinions by using normal e-mail correspondence method among all the registered participants.


Yasuhiko KAWSUMI

Rapporteur for Q10-2/2 on ?Telecommunications for Rural and Remote Areas?

(Yukio Miyoshi, Contracted administrator,

Monday, 08 January 2007 10:21:29 (W. Europe Standard Time, UTC+01:00)  #    Comments [1]  |