Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.& Nikos Vogiatzisbased on the EARNEST/GEANT2 Foresight Study

http://www.terena.org/activities/earnest/geog.html

Presented By:Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.

General Manager and Co-Founder, JNPartners Co.Director, Strategy, Corallia Clusters Initiative

j.sanchez@corallia.org

Bruges, 21 May 2008

From Digital Divide to Digital InclusionAre we REDI?

Research and Education Networking Digital Divide and Index (REDI)

A way to quantify and measure “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.

The International ExperienceA composite index

8-48 Indicators convoluted

Clustered in 3-6 sub-indexes

Assess progress in creating digital opportunity and bridging the DD

Ability to participate in and benefit from ICT

developments

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

A composite index for REN:The REDI Framework

– Covers a large number of countries

– Modular structure

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

– Straightforward methodology

• Raw ingredients are separate indicators that can be measured relatively easily.

• Can be convoluted into a single Index (RENDDI)

– Objective criteria and measurable indicators

• 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.

– Standardized indicators

• 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.

– 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

Studied Regions

GN2

• 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

• 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)

REDI Structure

Sub-IndexCluster Answers what?

Infrastructure

Usage

Affordability

Knowledge

Quality

How capable is the network we built?

How much the network is used?

Do we have the means to build a good network?

How robust is the network we built?

Do we have the capacity to use the network?

REDI Structure

Sub-IndexCluster Answers what?

Infrastructure

Usage

Affordability

Knowledge

Quality

Network capacity

Resources utilization

Financial capacity

General infrastructure landscape

Policy environment

Human capacity Human output

Network performance

How capable is the network we built?

How much the network is used?

Do we have the means to build a good network?

How robust is the network we built?

Do we have the capacity to use the network?

How to answer?

REDI StructureInfrastructure Sub-Index

Category Sub-category

Infrastructure

Sub-Index How to construct the Sub-Index?

Access network capacity

External connectivity capacity

Core network capacity

N e

t w

o r

k

c a

p a

c i t

y

REDI InputInfrastructure Sub-index (Source: TERENA compendium)

REDI StructureInfrastructure Sub-index

Category Sub-category

Infrastructure

Core network size per user

Core network capacity per user

Sub-Index Sub-Sub-Index

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

REDI StructureSub-Indices

Category

Infrastructure

Usage

Affordability

Knowledge

Quality

External connectivity capacity

Core network capacity Access network capacity

IP outgoing traffic IP incoming traffic

GDP Expenditure on R&D

Literacy School enrolment

Patents Researchers in R&D

NREN budget

Sub-Index Indicators

Internet tariffInternational Internet bandw.

Internet users

Regulatory situation

Unreachability Losses

Jitter Throughput

Network capacity

Resources utilization

Financial capacity

General infrast. landscape

Policy environment

Human capacity

Human output

Network performance

How to answer?

RTT

Findings: NREN International Bandwidth

• The total capacity of external links is indicative of the nominal ability of the NREN to carry traffic to the global Internet.– More than two orders of magnitude disparity between EU Member States

– More than three orders of magnitude between EU and the MED in average

• The average GEANT2 (34), Balkan (6) and MED (7) NRENs international bandwidth is 12Gb/s, 252Mb/s and 70Mb/s respectively

Findings: NREN International Bandwidth per Researcher, Student, etc

• Slovakia and the Netherlands score an average of 40kb/s – More than three orders of magnitude disparity between EU Member States,

Ukraine, Syria, Uzbekistan by four orders (0.004b/s).

– The avg. GEANT2 (34), Balkan (6) and MED (7) NRENs international bandwidth per user is 6kb/s, 0.7kb/s and 0.03kb/s respectively .

– The “NEW-EU-MS-10” outperforms by a factor of 2 any other average.

• The “trailing tail” of NRENs in the plotted figure are expected to encounter significant difficulty to access cutting-edge R&E applications and services over their international connection.

Findings: NREN Infrastructure Index

• By convoluting the set of indicators related to the NREN infrastructure, it is exhibited that there is a significant disparity – two orders of magnitude between Bulgaria (1,02)

and the Netherlands (100)– four orders of magnitude between Syria (0,01) and

the Netherlands (100).– between avg. GEANT2 (12,32), Balkan (5,90) and

MED (0,18).

Research and Education Development Index(2005 data)

Plotting the Digital Divide

REDI vs GDP per capita

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00

REDI

GD

P p

er c

apit

a

Iceland

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Slovakia

Czech Rep.Hungary

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Croatia

Finland

Slovenia

REDI vs GDP per capita

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00

REDI

GD

P p

er c

apit

a

Iceland

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Slovakia

Czech Rep.Hungary

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Croatia

Finland

Slovenia

Commercial vs RENInternational Bandwidth

0,00

5.000,00

10.000,00

15.000,00

20.000,00

25.000,00

30.000,00

35.000,00

40.000,00

45.000,00

0,00 5.000,00 10.000,00 15.000,00 20.000,00 25.000,00 30.000,00 35.000,00 40.000,00 45.000,00

Commercial

RE

N

Iceland

Netherlands

SwedenNorway

Slovakia

Denmark

Czech Rep.

Hungary

France

Switzerland

Luxembourg

UK

Germany

Ireland

Israel

Finland

AustriaSlovenia

Malta

Outgoing vs. Incoming NREN IP Traffic

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00

Incoming

Out

goin

g

Poland

Netherlands

Sweden

Norway

Slovakia

Denmark

Czech Rep.

Hungary

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Finland

Austria

Slovenia

Latvia

Belgium

Estonia

Iceland

Croatia

Greece

REDI vs Researchers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00

REDI

Re

sear

cher

s

Recommendations

1. GÉANT extensions in developing regions.

2. NRENs’ institutional role.

3. Predictability, fair competition, and deregulation of (telecom) markets.

4. EC special support action for low REDI performers (e-RED Initiative).

5. Member States’ R&E roadmaps in sync and in tune.

6. Education and training programmes for accessing and utilizing e-Infrastructures.

7. Monitor periodically progress towards sustainability through the REDI.

8. Policy Statement - Declaration of Solidarity for diminishing the digital divide.

Future Work

• Further validate raw input from databases

• Assess and improve convolution methods and weights

• Identify data for the Quality Index and include in measurements

• Run the Index for 2007 and potentially on an annual basis for a 3-5 year period

• Endorsement by Stakeholders:– National Research and Education Networks– Management of research institutes, universities and other research organizations– Governments and research funding bodies– European Commission / DG INFSO and other DGs– European Parliament / STOA

Acknowledgements

• TERENA Compendium team

• EARNEST panel members

• Geographic Issues Study Advisory Board

• Pinger team

• ITU / WorldBank / WEF / OECD - workgroups and studies