Mauritius vs Zimbabwe: Residential monthly telephone subscription
Residential monthly telephone subscription over time
- Mauritius
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 3.6 current US$ against 3.14 current US$ in Mauritius, a difference of 0.46 current US$.
That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times Mauritius's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Mauritius ahead.
Mauritius ranks 38th and Zimbabwe ranks 35th of 51 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Mauritius averaged higher in 1 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mauritius | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 3.37 current US$ | 1.79 current US$ | 1.58 current US$ | Mauritius |
| 2000s | 2.29 current US$ | 3.6 current US$ | 1.32 current US$ | Zimbabwe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher residential monthly telephone subscription, Mauritius or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 3.6 current US$ against 3.14 current US$ in Mauritius as of 2000.
- What is the difference in residential monthly telephone subscription between Mauritius and Zimbabwe?
- 0.46 current US$, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritius and Zimbabwe?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2000.
- How do Mauritius and Zimbabwe rank globally for residential monthly telephone subscription?
- Mauritius ranks 38th and Zimbabwe ranks 35th of 51 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Telecommunication Union, World Telecommunication Development Report and database, and World Bank estimates, published as Residential monthly telephone subscription (current US$). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Please cite the International Telecommunication Union for third-party use of these data. Monthly subscription refers to the recurring fixed charge for subscribing to the PSTN. The charge should cover the rental of the line, but not the rental of the terminal (e.g., telephone set) where the terminal equipment market is liberalized. Separate charges should be stated where appropriate, for first and subsequent lines. If the rental charge includes any allowance for free or reduced rate call units, this should be indicated. If there are different charges for different exchange areas, the largest urban area should be used and specified in a note. This indicator is expressed in US dollars.