geographic issues study

The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

Geographic Issues Study

Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.Bratislava, 27 April 2007


Presentation Topics

• The DD in the REN context• A Framework for measuring the DD in REN• The RENDDI structure• Key Findings and Future Work


Definition of the RENDD

“The uneven distribution, difference or gap in regular and effective access to and usage of

digital resources and technologies”… between scientists, researchers, students, etc* attached to research and education networks

… due to infrastructural, social, economic, educational, regulatory and other causes, including but not limited to, unavailability of, difficulty in accessing, unawareness of the availability and/or capabilities of, lack of understanding of how to access and/or use such digital resources and technologies.

* Conclusions should be able to be deducted for organizations, campuses, and geographic areas attached to research and education networks.


GIS main Goal

…to come up with an enhanced, concrete and structured measuring approach that will lead to a deeper understanding

and addressing of the Digital Divide (DD) challenges in the Research & Education Networking context.

Quantify the Digital Divide & Digital OpportunityQuantify the need for improved network performance


Why a Framework?

Stakeholders need information, benchmarks and analysis to evaluate what has been achieved, as well as what is achievable in the future in each member state and

neighboring countries for appropriate policy interventions to take place.

“it is part of the vision of the European Research Area that researchers throughout Europe, irrespective of location, will be able to contribute fully to its high-quality research activities. This represents equality of opportunity for

researchers, and increasingly, advanced research networks such as GÉANT and the NRENs are playing a key role in achieving this.”

The SERENATE study


GIS Target AreasGN2

• Austria (ACOnet) • Belgium (BELNET) • Bulgaria (BREN) • Croatia (CARNet) • Cyprus (CYNET) • Czech Republic

(CESNET) • Denmark (UNI-C) • Estonia (EENet) • Finland (FUNET) • France (RENATER) • Germany (DFN) • Greece (GRNET) • Hungary (HUNGARNET)

• Iceland (RHnet) • Ireland (HEAnet) • Israel (IUCC) • Italy (GARR)

GN2 Observers & SEEREN

• Serbia (AMRES)• FYR of Macedonia

(MARNet)

SEEREN

• Albania (ANA)• Montenegro (MREN)• Bosnia & Herzegovina

(BIHARNET)

PORTA OPTICA

• Belarus (BASNET) • Moldova (RENAM) • Ukraine (URAN)• Azerbaijan (AzRENA) • Georgia (GRENA) • Armenia (ASNET)

• Latvia (LATNET) • Lithuania (LITNET) • Luxembourg (RESTENA)

• Malta (CSC) • Netherlands (SURFnet) • Norway (UNINETT) • Poland (PIONIER) • Portugal (FCCN) • Romania (RoEduNet) • Russia (RBNET/RUNNET)• Slovakia (SANET) • Slovenia (ARNES) • Spain (RedIRIS) • Sweden (SUNET) • Switzerland (SWITCH) • Turkey (ULAKBIM) • United Kingdom

(UKERNA)

EUMEDCONNECT

• Algeria (ARN) • Egypt (EUN) • Jordan (JUNET)• Lebanon (CNRS) • Libya• Morocco (CNCPSRT) • Palestine (PADI2)• Syria (HIAST) • Tunisia (MRST)

OCASSION• Kazakhstan (KazRENA) • Kyrgyzstan (KRENA-

AKNET) • Tajikistan• Turkmenistan• Uzbekistan (UzSciNet)


Presentation Topics

• The DD in the REN context• A Framework for measuring the DD in

REN• The RENDDI structure• Key Findings and Future Work


The International Experience


Digital Opportunity Index (2005) (ITU/UNCTDA/KADO)


Digital Opportunity Index (2005)


Digital Access Index (2003) (ITU)


Digital Access Index (2003)


Networked Readiness Index (2007)

(WEF/Insead)


The RENDDI Framework

– Captures the causes as well as the effects of the Digital Divide, exposing both the readiness as well as the intensity of use of digital resources and technologies

– Data collected via high-quality sources, e.g. the Compendium or other databases from the ITU, WorldBank, EuroStat, etc, and processed via robust statistical methods.

– Allows for consistent and periodical measurements and assessments

• Permits comparisons of the Digital Divide evolution (whether it is diminishing and at what speed)—both changes in absolute scores, as well as changes in rankings.

– Based on a core set of indicators that illustrate features of the Digital Divide and fits the purpose of wide deployment

• Can be grouped in logical classifications/categories/areas with special interest (e.g. enabling factors/opportunity, infrastructure, usage, etc)

• Can be convoluted into a single Research and Education Networking Digital Divide Index (RENDDI)


Presentation Topics



RENDDI Structure

Category Sub-category

Infrastructure

Usage

Affordability

Knowledge

Quality

Network capacity/performance

Resources utilization => traffic generated

Financial status Related infrastructure landscape Policy environment

Human development Human output

User perception => network quality

How good is my network?

How much my network is used?

Can I build a good network?

Can I build a good network?

What is the capacity to build and use my network?


RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Category


Infrastructure


Access network capacity

External connectivity capacity

Core network capacity

N e

t w

o r

k c

a p

a c

i t y

/ p

e r f

o r

m a

n c

e


RENDDI StructureCategories


Infrastructure

Usage

Affordability

Knowledge

Quality

External connectivity capacityCore network capacity

Access network capacity

IP outgoing traffic IP incoming traffic

GDP Expenditure on education Expenditure on R&D

Literacy School enrolment Patents Researchers in R&D

Availability

NREN budget


Internet tariff International Internet bandw. Internet users Broadband users

Regulatory situation

Unreachability Losses Jitter Throughput


RENDDI InputExternal connectivity

(compendium)


RENDDI Input Core Network Size

(compendium)


RENDDI Input Core Capacity on the

Network(compendium)


RENDDI Input Access Network Capacity

(compendium)


RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Index


Infrastructure

Core network size per user

Core network capacity per user


External connectivity with peerings per user

Core network size per sq km

Access network capacity per user

External connectivity without peerings per user

N e

t w

o r

k c

a p

a c

i t y

/ p

e r f

o r

m a

n c

e


RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Index (cont’d)


InfrastructureIndex

Core network size Index1

Core network capacity Index


External connectivity with peerings Index

Core network size Index2

Access network capacity Index

NREN External

Connectivity Index

NREN Core Network

Connectivity Index

NREN Access Network

Connectivity Index

External connectivity without peerings Index67%

33%

30%10%60%

100%

33%

33%

33%


REN Infrastructure Index (2006)

Per user in averageNetherlands: (internat. connections) 84,18kbps (access network): 71,03kbpsIceland: (internat. connections) 59,18kbps (access network): 1.152,28kbpsSlovakia: (internat. connections) 78,45kbps (access network): 186,61kbpsRussia: (internat. connections) 0,27kbps (access network): 1,55kbps


RENDDI StructureSub-Indexes


InfrastructureIndex

UsageIndex

AffordabilityIndex

KnowledgeIndex

QualityIndex

Core network size per user

Core network capacity per user

IP outgoing traffic per user IP incoming traffic per user

GDP per capita Expenditure on education % of GDP Expenditure on R&D %

Adult Literacy School enrolment Patents per capita Researchers per capita

NREN budget %


Internet tariff % International Internet bandw.per capita

Internet users per capita

Broadband users pc

Regulatory situation

External connectivity without peerings per user

External connectivity with peerings per user Core network size per sq km

Access network capacity per user50%

20%

10%

10%

10%AvailabilityUnreachability Losses Jitter Throughput


RENDDI (2006) - top 30


RENDDI (2006) - next 30


RENDDI (2006)


RENDDI vs other related Indices


Presentation Topics



Key findings (1/4)Ranking and comparing countries on the 5 main sub-indices, is probably more useful than on the main RENDDI

– The sub-indices can allow for specific policy recommendations and concrete action plans in order to address low-ranked attributes.

– A country’s overall RENDDI score can be used to benchmark the performance on the main sub-indices in order to produce a specific diagnosis on intra-indicators correlations and deviations.


Key findings (2/4)Time evolution (trend) of RENDDI and its sub-indices is significantly more meaningful than a static snapshot

– This requires dedicated resources, commitment, and consistency, in order to implement a data collection, validation, and analysis (both offline and online) process that caries over a long period of time (e.g. min 3-5 years)


Key findings (3/4)TERENA Compendium is widely accepted by the NREN community as a reference point of data gathering, however, a data validation mechanism is required in order to ensure data correctness as much as possible– A data validation mechanism will also encourage cooperation

and coordination among the NREN, Academia, Ministries, and other stakeholders in order to produce a cohesive national policy and consensus.

– The RENDDI offers up to a point that validation mechanism


Key findings (4/4)The RENDDI provide R&E policymakers a policy tool

– A comprehensive statistical framework to monitor the RENDD

– A frame of reference for comparisons over time and between regions

– A benchmark for monitoring internal disparities in REN Infrastructure, Usage, Affordability, Knowledge and Quality based on classificatory variables of interest to the R&E community

– A Tool to evaluate the impact of REN policies


Future Work

• Further confirm the data in the databases and evaluate further the convolution methods

• Identify data for the Quality Index (pinger)• “Run” the Index again for 2007• Present the findings to the Stakeholders:

– The National Research and Education Networks– The management of research institutes, universities and other

organisations that could benefit from research and education networks

– Governments and research funding bodies for the development of future strategies

– The European Commission, which is sponsoring the study and values the Digital Divide issue high in its policy agenda

– The members of the European Parliament


Acknowledgements• TERENA

• EARNEST panel

• Geographic Issues Study Advisory Board

• Institute of Computer and Communications Systems

• ITU, WSIS, WorldBank, OECD, ICT4ICT

geographic issues study

Documents

digital divide dd challenges

itudigital access index

usage of digital resources

advanced research networks

education networks

networked readiness

european research area

equality of opportunity