Transcript SERENATE

Keep the date!
SERENATE Final Workshop
Bad Nauheim (near Frankfurt)
16-17 June 2003
Progress of the SERENATE
studies
Karel Vietsch
TERENA Secretary General
ENPG meeting
Dublin, 14 February 2003
Topics
• What is
•
•
•
•
•
•
about?
Structure and timescales
Initial workshop
Operators’ workshop
End-users’ workshop
Regulatory study
Infrastructure study
WHAT IS
SERENATE
ABOUT?
The acronym
• SERENATE = Study into European Research
and Education Networking as Targeted by
eEurope
• Funded as an EC project – FP5
• Looking at the strategic needs, say 5 years
ahead
• NOT making detailed plans
The objectives
Strategic study into the evolution of research &
education networking in Europe over the next
5-10 years. Looking into the technical,
organisational and financial aspects, the
market conditions and the regulatory
environment. Will provide inputs to the policymaking of the EC, national governments and
funding bodies, research institutions and
research & education networks.
Who are the partners?
• Academia Europaea
• Centre for Tele-informatics (CTI), Technical
University of Denmark
• DANTE
• European Science Foundation
• TERENA (coordinating partner)
• considerable involvement needed of other actors –
especially NRENs, end-users and industry (operators
and equipment suppliers) and governments and
funding bodies
STRUCTURE AND
TIMESCALES
The EU project
• Runs from 1 May 2002 for 17 months, so until
30 September 2003
• Comprises 14 areas of work, including
workshops, studies and report writing
www.serenate.org
Workshops
• Initial workshop (17-18 Sept 2002, La Hulpe) Done
• Operators’ views on infrastructure status and
evolution (8 Nov 2002, Amsterdam) Done
• User needs and priorities (17-19 Jan 2003,
Montpellier) Done
• NREN issues (4-5 Feb 2003, Noordwijkerhout) Done
• Final workshop (16-17 June 2003, Bad Nauheim near
Frankfurt) We need you there!
Some of the studies
• Regulatory development
• Current status of international transport
infrastructure
• Equipment
Other areas of work
• Users of NRENs outside the research and highereducation community (schools, libraries,
museums, healthcare, government, ….)
• Geographic issues
Route to more information?
• www.serenate.org
– Public website
– Information on the project
– Programmes and presentations from the
workshops
– All public reports
• mail to: [email protected]
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
INITIAL WORKSHOP
Initial Workshop
 17-18 September 2002 at La Hulpe
 94 participants from: national research & education networks,
researchers, government and funding bodies, telecom
operators, equipment manufacturers
 interesting plenary presentations:






researcher’s, educationalist’s and librarian’s view
policies/politics (EP, EC, ENPG)
the view from the campus (FR, UK)
the continental view (GÉANT, Internet2)
optical networking
problems in real life
 breakout discussion sessions on Technology, Economics,
Geography, Researchers’ Needs, Other Users’ Needs
www.serenate.org/publications/d1_serenate.pdf
First impressions (1/3)

From hardware to services:
Research networking is evolving fast. It is not so much just getting “hardware
connectivity” to the researcher’s desk, but it is increasingly about delivering a
set of services needed by researchers (and others). The user wants information
access, collaborative tools, “disciplinary Grids”. AAA and Web/Grid services
will be part of the delivery mechanism.

Research & education networks are a resource:
Lots of expertise. Growing understanding by government of the importance of ICT
as a driver for economic prosperity. Growing understanding by governments of
the value of their research & education network’s expertise. Increasing requests
to capitalise on that expertise.
First impressions (2/3)

Technology:
The “optical wave” is a powerful one. We need to find a coherent approach to the
“steadily increasing amplitude” of optical networking.

Economics:
We need a clear understanding of any regulatory barriers that we could face in
deploying pan-European fibre. Does it matter whether you actually own fibre,
or lease it on a long-term basis, or maybe even lease wavelengths?

Geography:
There is a potential conflict between two fundamental EU-policy concepts: equal
opportunities for researchers wherever they are (ERA)  subsidiarity.
First impressions (3/3)
•
Researcher-User Needs:
As much as they can get (and afford). AAA, Grids etc.

Other Users’ Needs:
Could one develop benchmarks for schools, libraries, hospitals etc.?

Policy and funding:
Dialogue with governments and politicians (national and European level) needed.
# of users
A
C
B
ADSL
GigE LAN
BW requirements
A -> Lightweight users, browsing, mailing, home use
B -> Business applications, multicast, streaming, VPN’s, mostly LAN
C -> Special scientific applications, computing, data grids, virtual-presence
OPERATORS’ WORKSHOP
Operators’ Workshop (1/2)
 7-8 November 2002 in Amsterdam
 45 participants mainly from telecom operators, but some
equipment manufacturerspresentations by 4 different
kinds of operators
 discussions on technology, pricing & geography, the
stability of the industry, collaboration between operators
and the research networking community
 report in your papers
 meeting interesting and some interest to repeat at intervals
www.serenate.org/publications/d4-serenate.pdf
Operators’ Workshop (2/2)
Major themes:
 hybrid net architecture needed
 Classic approach for any-to-any connectivity
 Switched approach when needing high speed between limited set of sites (Gridstyle)
 little (operator) interest in >10 Gb/s
 differing approaches to offering dark-fiber – some consensus
that wavelength services might be best
 expectation that increasing liberalisation in East Europe will
bring down costs
 further strong consolidation of the industry anticipated
 potential interest in more collaborative approach with NRENs
END-USERS’ WORKSHOP
The report on User Needs
will be based on two inputs:
1. The replies to a widely distributed
questionnaire
2. The presentations and discussions in the
SERENATE Workshop for end-users of
research networks (Montpellier, 17-19
January 2003)
The Questionnaire
• About 4000 researchers were invited to answer the
questions in a Web-based questionnaire
• About 500 replies received:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Physics 95
Chemistry 40
Technology 45
Life and earth sciences 56
Medical 110
Social sciences 67
Humanities 37
The Questionnaire
some highlights (1)
• 43% say they are not (yet) using highbandwidth networks, 57% say they are using
high-bandwidth networks
– Of the latter group, 48% mention accessing distant
databases, 15% mention distant processing e.g. at
supercomputers
• 37% transfer only rather small files (< 1 MB),
14% regularly transfer rather large files (> 100
MB)
The Questionnaire
some highlights (2)
• What would be the most important network
development for your research in the next 3, 5 and 10
years?
– 41%: more bandwidth, removal of bandwidth bottlenecks
– 5%: improved access of resources (e.g. from countries with
less than average access
– 13%: Grid computing
– 11%: larger or more distributed databases
– 8%: videoconferencing, use of distributed video material
– 5%: virtual working / virtual laboratories
– 5%: remote modelling, real-time visualisation
The Questionnaire
some highlights (3)
• What would the impact be to your research if network
speeds were increased by one or two orders of
magnitude (say, international connections at 10 or
100 Gb/s?
–
–
–
–
1%: negative impact (less time to think)
15%: “I have no idea”
24%: no major impact
45%: positive effects, namely:
•
•
•
•
•
Remote working with collaborators: 8%
Remote or distributed computing: 7%
Videoconferencing: 4%
Accessing databases or moving data: 3%
Remote control of equipment: 2%
The Questionnaire
some highlights (4)
• Is your use of the research network currently limited
by the international connections, the national
network, the regional/metropolitan network or the
campus network?
–
–
–
–
–
–
43%: there are no serious bottlenecks
15%: there are bottlenecks but I don’t know where
23%: the bottlenecks are in the campus network
7%: the bottlenecks are in the regional/metro network
11%: the bottlenecks are at the national level
13%: the bottlenecks are at the international level
The Questionnaire
some highlights (5)
• Who should be paying for research and education
networks and how?
– 91%: there should be no charging at the point of use:
•
•
•
•
12%: the government or EU should pay
5%: the university/institution should pay
74%: no further comment
“networking should be free, just like water and electricity”
– 9%: there should be some form of charging:
• 4%: according to use
• 2%: as part of research grants
• 2%: only heavy users should be charged
End Users’ Workshop (1/2)
 17-19 January 2003 in Montpellier
 ~40 participants
 Summary report will become available via
serenate.org/workshop3.html
End Users’ Workshop (2/2)
Some major themes:
 Much progress over past five years
 Campus is often the major bottleneck
 NREN model remains appropriate (discussion on EREN)
 Clearly growing requirements across all disciplines and all countries
 Move from bandwidth to “services” and the impact that this has/will have
on the relations between NREN and the national academic community
 Need for improved information flow between NRENs and end-users
 Digital Divide (inside Europe)
 Major issue
 Needs political action (and money!) to make any impact
 EU project to montior the situation?
 Communities beyond research and tertiary education
 Charging
REGULATORY STUDY
Regulatory situation
 study into the status of regulatory development in:
 each of the EU Accession States
 Portugal, Greece
 the other EU Member States as a whole
 carried out by CTI and Antelope Consulting
 report (D7) in your papers
www.serenate.org/publications/d7-serenate.pdf
Regulatory situation
Some conclusions:
 new EU regulatory package coming into force mid-2003:




no licenses needed any more and no other regulatory obstacles to NRENs to
own and operate their own networks
however Rights of Way remain an issue
NRENs must either be public operators or not; not wise to continue being in a
grey zone
cases studies on all Accession States:



large differences between these countries
early liberalisation (HU, EE) seems to have resulted in much better situation
than in other countries
in almost all countries liberalisation is officially well-advanced, but in many
countries there is de-facto still a situation much similar to the old monopoly
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
Transport Infrastructure
 fact-finding on the transport and infrastructure
market – deployment and trends, incl. pricing and
availability and market development
 carried out by DANTE and CTI
 GÉANT procurements as one of the inputs plus
interviews with European-level operators
 report on status of international connectivity (D6) in
your papers
www.serenate.org/publications/d6-serenate.pdf
Transport infrastructure
Some conclusions:
 liberalisation has had a great effect on prices and has
provided access to the most advanced building blocks
(currently 10 Gb/s wavelenghts)



there is a large and growing Digital Divide in Europe
the EC view is complacent
the market is not yet stable
Table 1
Period
1991 - 1995
1996 - 1997
1997 - 2000
2000 +
Technology Available 1991-2002
Most performant Data
Link technology
available
34/45 Mbps PDH
155 Mbps SDH
622 Mbps SDH
10 Gbps DWDM
Technology available
in pan-European
network
2 Mbps PDH
45 Mbps PDH
155 Mbps SDH
10 Gbps DWDM
Technology available
in United States
network
45 Mbps PDH
155 Mbps SDH
622 Mbps SDH
2.5 Gbps DWDM
Table 2
International Connectivity Costs in the Differing Market Segments
Market segment
Liberal Market with transparent pricing
Liberal Market with less transparent
pricing structure
Emerging Market without transparent
pricing
Traditional Monopolist market
Number of
Countries
8
7
Cost Range
1-1.4
1.8-3.3
3
7.5-7.8
9
18-39
Evolution of Market Competitiveness :
International Intra-European Connectivity
Euro / Mbps / Year
1,000,000
200,000
100,000
150,000
100,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
12,500
2,000
1,000
100
5,000
36
10
1
1996
1997
1998-99
19992000
Period covered
20002001
average offer price
lowest offer price
Multipliers for Differing Circuit Speeds
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3000
2500
2000
1500
Speed In MBps
1000
500
0
Multiplier
Relative Cost of Connectivity Compared with
Number of Suppliers
45
40
35
30
Re
lat 25
iv
e
co 20
st
Trend Line
15
10
Number of suppliers
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Combined EU - Accession State Comparison
34 Mbps International Circuit - price
comparisons
1400
1200
1000
K
Eu
ros 800
per
ye
ar
600
400
200
0
EU Survey Figures
EU countries
EU Survey Figures
Accesion countries
GEANT figures EU
survey countries
GEANT figures
Accesion survey
countries
GEANT figures All
EU countries
GEANT figures All
Accesion countries
GEANT all country
Average
Scenario 1(The Good)
Cost effective connectivity for all
Equality of Access for all
Probability <10%
Needs political/direct action
Scenario 2 (The Bad)
Current Market Structure is Maintained
Limited increase in Competition
Digital Divide Remains
Inequality of Access a factor
Scenario 3 (The Ugly)
More corporate failures
Return to the old PNO model
Fragmentation of the Market
Equality of Access denied
BACK TO SERENATE IN
GENERAL
PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES?
We need YOU
to be at the
SERENATE Final Workshop
Bad Nauheim (near Frankfurt)
16-17 June 2003