1. The Digital Divide inside European Research and Education, and other topics David Williams HEPgrid and Digital Divide Workshop Rio de Janiero, Brazil 17 February 2004

2. Structure n First about the “digital divide” inside the R&E community in “Europe” n Then a little about the other recommendations of the SERENATE report – a strategic look at European networking on the 5(-10) year timescale n Finally some comments about the economics of Internet access for research in Africa n And one slide to wrap-up

3. Why me? n My main job is the coordination of relations between CERN and the institutions of the European Union –especially Commission, but also e.g. Parliament n I have a long-term professional interest in IT and networking n From 1999 until May 2003 I was president of TERENA, the association of national research and education networks (NRENs) in Europe n I led an FP5-funded project, called SERENATE (see www.serenate.org) which recently completed its report on the medium-term (5-10 year) strategy for European research and education networks. I hope that some copies of this report have arrived in Rio and are available. www.serenate.org

4. SERENATE and the DIGITAL DIVIDE inside EUROPE This work was led by Marko Bonač, the head of the Slovenian NREN. He unfortunately cannot be here, but agreed that I can use some of his slides.

5. SERENATE findings on geographic issues SERENATE findings on geographic issues Marko Bonač ARNES bonac@arnes.si

6. Report identifying issues related to the geographic coverage of European research and education networking The Report will  review the digital divide in research networking provision in Europe and  provide some recommendations on how this divide could be closed. Sources of information are:  answers to the special questionnaire sent to all eastern European NRENs  several meetings with eastern European NRENs  TERENA Compendium 2003 Marko Bonac (Arnes) and John Martin (ENPG) are working on the Report. Any additional input is welcome.

7. NRENs from eastern Europe  Albania (ANA)  Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIHARNET)  Bulgaria (ICT)  Croatia (CARNet)  Cyprus (CYNET)  Czech Republic (CESNET)  Estonia (EENet)  Hungary (HUNGARNET)  Latvia (LATNET, LANET)  Lithuania (LITNET)  Macedonia, FYR (MARNet)  Malta (CSC)  Poland (PSNC)  Romania (RoEduNet, RNC)  Serbia and Montenegro (AMREJ)  Slovak Republic (SANET)  Slovenia (Arnes)  Turkey (ULAKBIM)

8. GDP – annual per capita n GDP per capita per year converted at PPP n I know that this is a very crude indicator, but it’s important background for keeping some sort of grip on the economic realities n Unfortunately there are people who publish very different estimates. I use EuropeAid 2001 data n EU-15 averages above 20 k€, with Lux well above 30 k€ n EU 16-25 averages about 5.5 k€ –4 times less than EU-15 n Croatia is at that same level n SEE average is below 2 k€, with a range from 1.1 to 5.5 k€ –10 times less than EU-15 n Brazil is around 7.5 k$

9. Data illustrating the digital divide Group of countries NREN total international bandwidth (Mbps) Typical National Core Bandwidth (Mbps) NREN budget per 1 M inhabitants (MEURO) GDP per capita (EURO) GERD per capita (EURO) Average EEA 6,8923,8331,5725,226510 Average AC 1,1867120,7711,79144 Average OEC 2501610,49

10. GÉANT (January 2003) Country grouping Speed of access port to GÉANT in Mbps LoadExpenditure for GÉANT as percentage of NREN`s budget Average EEA 2.0066 % Average AC 66228 %23 % Average OEC 15537 %22%

11. High speed University connections Country grouping Percentage of Universities connected to NREN at 1 Gbps or more Percentage of Universities connected to NREN at 100 Mbps or more Average EEA 29 %47 % Average AC 10 %24 % Average OEC 2 %24 %

12. Findings and recommendations Digital Divide exists  The depth of the digital divide varies very greatly from country to country  There are four countries in eastern Europe with a high overall standard of research networking. Reasons include: –Good support for research networking at government level –Access to dark fibre where/when necessary –History of participation in joint European projects  The majority of countries fall very far behind those in western Europe  The consequences of this digital divide are serious  Those countries without an adequate research network will suffer from “research exclusion”

13. Findings and recommendations Access to dark fibre is vital  Access to dark fibre enables the NRENs in small eastern European countries to upgrade the capacity of the backbone and access links one hundred-fold without spending much more on the infrastructure  At the present moment this is the main step which could be taken to close the digital divide. –It seems that in most eastern European countries the fibre is already laid. –In countries with a liberalized telecommunication market it is not difficult to get the fibre. –There are encouraging examples that this was also done in the countries with monopoly in telecommunications –Could the EC make recommendations in this respect? _

14. Findings and recommendations The case for research networks still needs to be made  Lack of awareness of the importance of research networking / at government level as well as at academic level / is a matter of concern  Sometimes it is supposed that the ordinary Internet will solve the problem. Not every one recognizes that without high capacity research network research exclusion is inevitable.  Problems are also known to exist where –the NREN is not formally established as an independent body or –where there are several NRENs with indistinct responsibilities and without necessarily economy of scale

15. Summary 1.Digital divide in research networking provision exists 2.The depth of the digital divide varies very greatly from country to country. 3.The digital divide between most developed and least developed countries is getting bigger. 4.If uncorrected, will prevent the goal of equal opportunity for researchers. A.Access to dark fibre is vital B.Awareness of the importance of research networking at government level is important. C.Participation in joint projects is very valuable. D.Could the European Commission and TERENA do more to close the digital divide ?

16. Some personal comments n I think that the digital divide issue is actually very important for the future stability of the world n I think that it will be very difficult to fix n Some of it is finding the right technologies for different areas n But a lot is about the structure of society – reliable electrical power, government transparency, support for education and scientific research – and while the developed countries can give advice and try to help, the real directions can only be determined in the developing world n But you need to understand that “removing the digital divide” is shooting at a moving target. Internet use has only just started and technological progress will move the goalposts (raise the bar) a lot in the next 2-3-5 years.

17. What might help? n Scientists have to sell their ideas to politicians and to society in general n Creating a National Research and Education Network does help – the power of acting together n High costs of connectivity are a killer – Europe suffered from that a lot from the early 80s to the late 90s n GEANT communications 30 M€  5 M€ n Try to work very hard to obtain access to an optical fibre backbone –EU-25 has regulated that –Poland and Czech Republic built/leased their own –Serbia fixed the issue

18. THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SERENATE REPORT

19. Main SERENATE messages n Optical networking is coming and everyone can and should participate n Heavy use applications are coming and will need careful attention n [A “digital divide” exists inside the European R&E community] n The campus is frequently the weakest link in the networking chain n Users want end-to-end service quality, compatible pan-European Authentication and Authorisation Infrastructure, and value-added services n The extent to which an NREN user community is inclusive is a national issue, but economies of scale are important in smaller countries n Continued EU and national focus on European R&E education networking will be necessary

20. Typical NRENs n Structure –A separate organisation, more or less at arms-length from government, reporting to appointed management board –You can find lots of detailed status information in the annual TERENA Compendium (www.terena.nl/compendium) www.terena.nl/compendium n Funding –Typically mixed – most from user population, some from government – for special missions –No charge to individual at point of user. Typical end-user cost is ~25-50 €/yr. –GÉANT cost shared according to subscribed bandwidth, but without looking at what local bandwidth costs. Smoothes out heavy price variations. n User communities –Originally teachers, students and researchers at universities and research centres. Extended to ~all education in some countries during 1990s. n AUPs –NRENs have a dedicated mission and do not want to compete with ISPs

21. NREN goals and objectives n Serve users –Deliver “high quality” networking –Cost effective; Reliable; Very advanced (when needed); –Everywhere to everywhere; Well-supported; Well-integrated with national R&E communities n Network as infrastructure –Always working – user doesn’t need to think about it n [Provide support European Research Area] –GEANT directly connects 30+ countries –Cutting edge of real ERA n [Technical innovation and feed-through to society and industry] –The government may not always understand that this is important

22. The NREN model n The model of one NREN per country PLUS close collaboration at the European level has been a success factor in the development of European R&E networking n We expect this model to remain in place and to continue to be one of the keys to success over the next 5-10 years n R&E users want most advanced services – reasonably tolerant of “bleeding edge” – can’t afford large sums - so no compelling business case for early commercial investment in these advanced services n However, the majority of this highly educated and active user population moves on very quickly from higher education to commerce and industry – carrying its advanced networking knowledge with it. n Arguments related to language, culture, funding and the organisation of education and research explain why “one NREN per country” and “one country per NREN” seem to be very natural concepts

23. SOME PERSONAL THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SITUATION IN AFRICA In early January I attended a very interesting conference in Cape Town (South Africa), which was mainly about Open Source initiatives in Africa. There was also a specific Bandwidth Workshop on one afternoon. See idelelo.uwc.ac.za idelelo.uwc.ac.za

24. Bandwidth economics – (African) satellites n Satellites (typically VSATs) are often the most reasonable (probably only) way to reach many remote locations n 10 $ per kbps per month (or 120 k$ per Mbps per year) is regarded as a standard price today in much of Africa n 4 $ per kbps per month is regarded as a very good price, and, as far as I can see is roughly the price of the Silk Road project which connects several countries in the Caucasus to the global Internet via DESY and DFN/GÉANT. n The best price that I could find to Africa was 1.5 $ per kbps per month, and that probably corresponds to renting a full transponder.

25. Bandwidth economics – (European) cables n If we look at terrestrial cables in Europe then the “best” commercial price paid by GÉANT today is 0.002 € per kbps per month (or 24 € per Mbps per year) n The average price paid by GÉANT for its core 10 Gbps connectivity is 0.008 € per kbps per month n A good price today for a 10 Gbps circuit in the USA is below the European price, a little below 0.001 $ per kbps per month (under 100 k$ per year for a 500 miles long 10 Gbps circuit). n So – terrestrial cables in the developed world provide bandwidth at a cost with is hundreds to thousands of times lower than satellites in the developing world! n What does this tell us?

26. Bandwidth economics – lessons?? (1/2) n There are (at least) four important factors in play –The inherently higher capital cost of satellite communication compared to a terrestrial cable –The amount of competition in the market –The lack of flexibility of a satellite – all of the investment has to be committed prior to launch –The high cost of acquiring bandwidth in small amounts n The fundamental capital investment cost of satellite bandwidth is about 100 $ per kbps. Each satellite costs roughly 300 M$ to launch (100 for the rocket, 100 for the satellite and 100 for the insurance). And it can deploy ~30 transponders of 90 Mbps capacity. So, one satellite = ~ 2.5 Gbps. n On the other hand pan-European optical fibre builds had capital costs of roughly 500 M€ and (easily) provide 100 fibre pairs, which, even of you deploy only 10 Gbps on each pair, gives a capital cost of 0.5€ per kbps. And that number can be driven down by deploying extra λs. n So, the capital cost of satellite bandwidth is (at least) some 200x that of terrestrial fibre bandwidth

27. Bandwidth economics – lessons?? (2/2) n The extent to which any market is competitive depends on a number of factors. GEANT experience shows that having at least four suppliers is a necessary condition for truly competitive pricing. n The GEANT experience also shows that the last point (the high cost of buying in small amounts) amounts to a factor 30x between kbps and Gbps. n The requirement for up-front investment prior to launch certainly reduces the flexibility for a satellite operator, but it is not obvious that this is a crucial commercial issue. n So I conclude that, speaking very roughly, the ~1000x price differential is due to 100x inherent cost differential between satellites and terrestrial fibre, and 10x because African universities are only buying (able to buy) bandwidth in small chunks.

28. Bandwidth economics – submarine cable n When compared to terrestrial cable the inherent cost of submarine cable systems is some 10x higher (my “personal best estimate”) n For example, the TAT-14 trans-Atlantic cable system provides 650 Gbps of fully protected capacity (equivalent to 1300 Gbps of unprotected capacity) for an investment of 1.4 G$ n Like satellites, submarine cables have to be fully configured at the time of deployment n The amplifiers and regenerators have to be built to operate ultra- reliably (~30 years) under several 1000m of seawater n So cable systems are not normally installed with more than 8 fibre pairs (compared to ~96 or even more for terrestrial systems) n However, even more important is the nature of the ownership of the cable n The SAT-3 system (down the West coast of Africa) is a “consortium” cable, owned and managed by the national PTTs n Who seem to be pricing its capacity to just undercut satellite bandwidth – and hence to reap quasi-monopoly profits by charging prices which are unrelated to the inherent cost of the cable.

29. FINAL REMARKS

30. What might help? n I believe that there are lessons which we can draw from the history of European networking which are almost certainly now applicable for much of the developing world n Create and support National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) –Disciplines must cooperate –Universities and other research institutes must cooperate n Buy in bulk –Countries must cooperate in purchasing n Make sure that your campuses have modern campus-LANs; this is an essential first stage of creating infrastructure –Faculties must cooperate –And university managements need to be lobbied about the importance n Think about connectivity to the next door countries (as well as to Europe and the USA) n Remember that fibre is 100x-1000x cheaper than satellite! Install it on top of the power lines?? n Lobby your funding authorities and politicians –Especially to create a competitive telecoms environment

31. THE END