Transcript Slides - TERENA Networking Conference 2008

From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
Are we REDI?
Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.& Nikos Vogiatzis
based 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
[email protected]
Bruges, 21 May 2008
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 Experience
A composite index
Assess progress in
creating digital
opportunity and
bridging the DD
Ability to participate in
and benefit from ICT
developments
Clustered in 36 sub-indexes
8-48 Indicators
convoluted
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)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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)
GN2 Observers
EUMEDCONNECT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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)
Algeria (ARN)
Egypt (EUN)
Jordan (JUNET)
Lebanon (CNRS)
Libya
Morocco (CNCPSRT)
Palestine (PADI2)
Syria (HIAST)
Tunisia (MRST)
OCASSION
•
•
•
•
•
Kazakhstan (KazRENA)
Kyrgyzstan (KRENAAKNET)
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan (UzSciNet)
REDI Structure
Sub-Index
Cluster
Answers what?
Infrastructure How capable is the network we built?
Usage
How much the network is used?
Affordability
Do we have the means to build a good network?
Knowledge
Do we have the capacity to use the network?
Quality
How robust is the network we built?
REDI Structure
Sub-Index
Cluster
How to answer?
Answers what?
Infrastructure How capable is the network we built?
Usage
How much the network is used?
Affordability
Do we have the means to
build a good network?
Knowledge
Do we have the capacity to use the
network?
Quality
How robust is the network we built?
Network capacity
Resources utilization
General infrastructure landscape
Financial capacity
Policy environment
Human capacity
Human output
Network performance
REDI Structure
Infrastructure Sub-Index
Sub-Index
Category
Sub-category
How
to construct the Sub-Index?
Infrastructure
Network capacity
External connectivity capacity
Core network capacity
Access network capacity
REDI Input
Infrastructure Sub-index
(Source: TERENA compendium)
REDI Structure
Infrastructure Sub-index
Sub-Index
Category
Sub-category
Sub-Sub-Index
External connectivity with peerings per user
Infrastructure
Network capacity
External connectivity without peerings per user
Core network size per user
Core network size per sq km
Core network capacity per user
Access network capacity per user
REDI Structure
Sub-Indices
Sub-Index
Category
Infrastructure
How to answer?
Indicators
External connectivity capacity
Network capacity
Core network capacityAccess network capacity
Usage
Resources utilization
IP outgoing traffic
IP incoming traffic
Internet tariff
International Internet bandw.
General infrast. landscape
Affordability
Financial capacity
Internet users
GDP
Expenditure on R&D
Regulatory situation
Policy environment
Knowledge
Human capacity
Human output
Quality
Literacy
Patents
RTT
Network performance
NREN budget
School enrolment
Researchers in R&D
Jitter
Throughput
Unreachability
Losses
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
100,00
Luxembourg
90,00
REDI vs GDP per capita
Norway
80,00
Iceland
70,00
GDP per capita
Switzerland
60,00
Sweden
Finland
50,00
Netherlands
40,00
30,00
Slovenia
20,00
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Croatia
Slovakia
10,00
0,00
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
REDI
45.000,00
100,00
100
Slovenia
Slovakia
Commercial vs REN
International Bandwidth
Netherlands
40.000,00
90,00
Outgoing vs. Incoming
NREN IP Traffic
REDI vs Researchers
Iceland
90
Sweden
80,00
35.000,00
80
Czech Rep.
Switzerland
70,00
30.000,00
70
Norway
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
20.000,00
Finland
Ireland
60
50,00
40,00
Austria
Slovenia
Slovakia
Luxembourg
30,00
20,00
UK
France
0,00
0,00
40
30
Hungary
Latvia
10.000,00
Germany
Israel
Austria
Estonia
Belgium
20
Croatia
10
Greece
10,00
50
Czech
Rep.
Denmark
Iceland
5.000,00
Netherlands
Finland
Switzerland
Luxembourg
15.000,00
Researchers
REN
Hungary
Outgoing
60,00
25.000,00
Poland
Malta
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
0,00
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
Incoming
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
REDI
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
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