A telecom practitioner explains how international routes are chosen, why resilience matters, and what Pakistan-based businesses should ask for.
Humayun Khan is Deputy General Manager, Global Business at Exponentia Global USA, based in Karachi. With more than 15 years of experience across telecom fixed/data networks, global carrier connectivity, commercial strategy, and supplier and contract management, he works on the decisions that sit behind “always-on” international networks. In this conversation, he breaks down subsea cables in plain terms: why certain global hubs matter, what route diversity really means, and how operators, content providers and enterprises can reduce connectivity risk without overcomplicating the story. He also shares what he wishes more Pakistan-based organisations asked their providers before an incident happens.
Q: People hear about “subsea cables” only when there’s a disruption. In simple terms, why do these cables matter for Pakistan?
A: Because most of Pakistan’s international internet traffic relies on undersea fibre routes that connect us to global networks. When those routes are up and running, most people never think about them. When there is an issue—whether it’s a fault, congestion, or limited alternatives—the impact can show up as slower services, unstable connections, and pressure on overall quality.
For Pakistan, this matters because digital dependence is growing across banking, business operations, cloud usage, OTT (over-the-top) applications and everyday communication. Subsea cables are not just “telco infrastructure”; they affect business continuity, customer experience, and the economics of bandwidth over time.
Q: You work in global wholesale connectivity. What does your role look like beyond the job title?
A: A lot of it is translating between what customers want and what networks can realistically deliver. On one side, you’re building and protecting revenue through sales strategy, customer relationships, and product planning. On the other side, you’re managing sourcing, suppliers, and contracts—because international connectivity depends on partners and infrastructure outside any single network.
The day-to-day includes evaluating routes and capacity options, negotiating terms, setting practical service expectations, and making sure delivery and support teams are aligned with what was sold. It’s commercial work, but it stays closely tied to technical realities and operational discipline.
Q: When you talk about global hubs and routes, what makes a “good” international route or hub for connectivity?
A: A good route is one that matches the customer’s need and holds up under real operating conditions. Some customers care most about latency, others care most about stability, and many care about both—within a realistic budget. A “hub” matters because it’s where networks interconnect and where you can access wider reach with more predictable performance.
But in practice, the biggest difference is options. If you only have one practical path, you’re exposed. A strong design gives you routing flexibility and genuine alternatives, so you’re not dependent on one segment behaving perfectly every day.
Q: We hear “route diversity” a lot. What does it actually mean in plain English?
A: Route diversity means having more than one meaningful way to reach the same global destination—so that a fault in one place doesn’t take everything down. The key word is “meaningful.” Two routes can look different on paper but still share the same weak points, like the same landing area or the same corridor.
So diversity isn’t just buying a second link. It’s understanding where paths physically and operationally overlap, and designing around that. In wholesale connectivity, genuine diversity is one of the biggest drivers of real reliability, especially for organisations that cannot afford prolonged instability.
Q: In Pakistan, the debate often becomes “we need more bandwidth.” What do you think is misunderstood about capacity planning?
A: More bandwidth helps, but it’s not the full story. You can add capacity and still see poor outcomes if routing options are limited, restoration is unclear, or operational readiness is weak. Another misunderstanding is treating all international capacity as identical. The differences usually show up during incidents—how quickly issues are detected, how communication works, and how restoration is handled.
Capacity planning works best when it’s proactive. If teams buy only when they’re already tight, choices narrow and costs can rise. Better planning includes forecasting demand, setting clear service expectations, and building a balanced sourcing strategy rather than reacting under pressure.
Q: From your experience, how do you balance three competing things: cost, performance, and reliability?
A: By being honest about trade-offs and aligning the promise with the design. If the priority is the lowest latency, you pursue that—but you also plan how you will protect service if that preferred path has an issue. If the priority is cost, you can still protect reliability through contract clarity, realistic service-level agreements, and sensible redundancy choices instead of relying on assumptions.
A structured evaluation helps: technical fit, route diversity, supplier track record, contract terms, and operational responsiveness. Over time, the best outcomes come from consistency—delivering what was promised and handling issues transparently when they occur.
Q: When something goes wrong on an international route, what should businesses expect—and what should they ask their provider?
A: They should expect that faults can happen in any large network environment, but they should also expect clear communication and a defined recovery approach. Businesses should ask: what is the alternate path, what are the escalation steps, and what timelines are realistic? They should also ask who is responsible for which part of the service chain, so accountability is clear.
Another practical question is visibility: what monitoring and reporting exists, and how will the provider share information during an incident? Many problems become bigger because customers are left guessing. Clear reporting and clear responsibility boundaries reduce confusion and improve outcomes.
Q: Your background includes engineering and an MBA. How does that help you explain connectivity decisions to non-technical stakeholders?
A: It helps because the decision is rarely purely technical or purely commercial. Engineering helps you understand constraints—what is feasible, where risks sit, and what performance claims actually mean. Business training helps you frame choices around value, cost, risk, and long-term sustainability.
For non-technical stakeholders, the goal isn’t to teach networking. It’s to make the choice understandable: what are we buying, what does “good” look like, what happens when there is an issue, and what risks are we accepting? That clarity improves decisions and reduces unpleasant surprises later.
Q: Looking ahead, what changes do you expect in the way Pakistan-based organisations think about international connectivity over the next 12–24 months?
A: I expect more focus on resilience and predictability. As more business processes depend on always-on systems, tolerance for instability drops. Buyers become more demanding about diversity, incident management, and visibility—because connectivity is no longer “background”; it’s part of customer experience and business continuity.
I also expect more maturity in how teams coordinate internally. Connectivity decisions touch procurement, network, and operations. When those groups aren’t aligned, solutions can look fine on paper but fail under stress. Organisations that treat connectivity as a strategy—planned early, designed for resilience, and managed with discipline—will be better positioned as demand grows.
Q: Finally, what’s one practical piece of advice you’d give to Pakistan’s network and IT leaders who want fewer surprises?
A: Plan earlier than you think you need to, and design for failure rather than assuming perfect conditions. Start with clear requirements—performance expectations, acceptable downtime, and the level of redundancy you need—then build sourcing and operations around that.
Just as importantly, insist on clarity: who owns what, how issues will be communicated, and what the recovery plan is when something breaks. I always encourage teams to run a simple “what if” drill—if a route goes down, who is on call, what is the alternate path, and what timelines are realistic? In international connectivity, the details that feel “administrative” often decide whether a small fault stays small—or becomes a costly business disruption.