the earnest foresight study 2006 - 2007 geographic issues study jorge-a. sanchez-p.& nikos...

The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007

Geographic Issues Study

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

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

Amsterdam, 8 May 2007

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


Presentation Topics

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


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 / Opportunity

Quantify the need for improved network performance


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.


Why a solid and robust 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


The International Experience

A 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)


Digital Access Index (2003)

(Source: ITU)


Networked Readiness Index (2007)

(Source: WEF/Insead)


The RENDDI Quantification

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


RENDDI 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 my network?

How much my network is used?

Can I build a good network?

How robust is my network?

Can people build and use my network?

How to answer?


RENDDI 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


RENDDI StructureSub-Indexes


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

Sub-Index How to construct the Sub-Indexes?

Internet tariff International Internet bandw. Internet users Broadband users

Regulatory situation

Unreachability Losses Jitter Throughput


RENDDI InputInfrastructure Index

(Source: TERENA compendium)


RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Index


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

The NREN potential users are 7.5% of the

population


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)

Average kbps per NREN userNetherlands: (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 StructureUser-centric Sub-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

IcelandNetherlands

Sweden

SwedenSwedenGermanyFranceIsrael

Slovenia

Finland

Denmark


RENDDI (2006) - next 30


RENDDI (2006)


RENDDI vs other related Indices

RENDDI vs DAI

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

RENDDI vs DOI

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Iceland

Netherlands

Sweden

NorwaySlovakia

DenmarkCzech

Hungary

Latvia


RENDDI vs …RENDDI 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 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 RENDDI vs Population in Countries

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0 20.000.000 40.000.000 60.000.000 80.000.000 100.000.000

RENDDI vs Internet tarif f

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

Luxembourg

Latvia

Armenia

Iceland

Netherlands

RENDDI vs DOI and DAI

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00

Digital Access Index

Digital Opportunity Index

Log. (Digital Opportunity Index)

Log. (Digital Access Index)


Other results…NREN Budget (as % of GDP)

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

0,2C

roat

iaS

love

nia

Ire

land

Por

tuga

lLu

xem

bour

gE

ston

iaS

wed

en

Cyp

rus

Nor

way

Net

her

land

sG

reec

eLa

tvia

Icel

and

Hun

gar

yS

witz

erla

ndU

nite

d K

ingd

omF

inla

nd

Mol

dova

Tu

rkey

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Ser

bia

Geo

rgia

Pol

and

Jord

anD

enm

ark

Mac

edo

nia

, F

YR

Slo

vaki

aB

elgi

um

Alg

eria

Lith

uani

aG

erm

any

Italy

Aus

tria

Fra

nce

Spa

inR

oman

iaIs

rael

Bul

gari

aA

zerb

aija

nB

elar

usA

lban

iaK

azak

hsta

nK

yrgy

zsta

nM

oroc

coS

yria

Rus

sia

Uzb

ekis

tan

Ukr

ain

e

RENDDI vs GDP pc (NREN budget)

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00


The RENDDI as a policy tool

• 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.

• 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)

• 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


The RENDDI as a policy tool

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 (sensitivity analysis, etc) -> Compare “Apples with Apples”

• 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


Final outcome

• REN-DD Policy Workshop & White Paper– A declaration of solidarity for closing the REN-

DD– To be endorsed and co-signed by

• EC• EP• NREN directors• National and EU Policy Makers • et al.

– Commit to a “REN-DD Action Plan: 2007-2013” based on GIS findings and recommendations.


Acknowledgements

• TERENA

• EARNEST panel

• Geographic Issues Study Advisory Board

• Institute of Computer and Communications Systems

• Pinger

• ITU, WorldBank, WEF, OECD

Please send your comments to [email protected]


GIS Target Areas

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 & 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)


Defining the Digital Divide

“The origins of the Digital Divide can be dated quite precisely to May 24, 1844, when the first electronic telegraph route was opened between Washington D.C. and Baltimore, and when Samuel Morse sent the historic first message “What hath God wrought?”

That first link privileged the two end-points of the circuit, but every other point on the globe suddenly found itself on the wrong side of a newly-opened Digital Divide.

However, by the time the original telegraph circuit was extended to reach Philadelphia and New York, the Digital Divide was already starting to be reduced.”

the earnest foresight study 2006 - 2007 geographic issues study jorge-a. sanchez-p.& nikos...

Documents

digital dividee

usage of digital resources

digital divide evolution

digital divide dd challenges

advanced research networks

education networks

european research area

itunetworked readiness