Keep the date!

1. Keep the date! SERENATE Final Workshop Bad Nauheim (near Frankfurt) 16-17 June 2003

2. Progress of the SERENATE studies Karel Vietsch TERENA Secretary General ENPG meeting Dublin, 14 February 2003

3. Topics • What is about? • Structure and timescales • Initial workshop • Operators’ workshop • End-users’ workshop • Regulatory study • Infrastructure study

4. WHAT ISSERENATEABOUT?

5. 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

6. 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 policy-making of the EC, national governments and funding bodies, research institutions and research & education networks.

7. 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

8. STRUCTURE AND TIMESCALES

9. 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

10. 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!

11. Some of the studies • Regulatory development • Current status of international transport infrastructure • Equipment

12. Other areas of work • Users of NRENs outside the research and higher-education community (schools, libraries, museums, healthcare, government, ….) • Geographic issues

13. Route to more information? • www.serenate.org • Public website • Information on the project • Programmes and presentations from the workshops • All public reports • mail to: info@serenate.org

14. Where are we today?

15. INITIAL WORKSHOP

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. # 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

21. OPERATORS’ WORKSHOP

22. 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

23. 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 (Grid-style) • 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

24. END-USERS’ WORKSHOP

25. The report on User Needs will be based on two inputs: • The replies to a widely distributed questionnaire • The presentations and discussions in the SERENATE Workshop for end-users of research networks (Montpellier, 17-19 January 2003)

26. 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

27. The Questionnairesome highlights (1) • 43% say they are not (yet) using high-bandwidth 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)

28. The Questionnairesome 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

29. The Questionnairesome 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%

30. The Questionnairesome 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

31. The Questionnairesome 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

32. End Users’ Workshop (1/2) • 17-19 January 2003 in Montpellier • ~40 participants • Summary report will become available via serenate.org/workshop3.html

33. 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

34. REGULATORY STUDY

35. 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

36. 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

37. INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY

38. 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

39. 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

42. Evolution of Market Competitiveness : International Intra-European Connectivity

43. Multipliers for Differing Circuit Speeds

44. Relative Cost of Connectivity Compared with Number of Suppliers

45. Combined EU - Accession State Comparison

46. Scenario 1(The Good) Cost effective connectivity for all Equality of Access for all Probability <10% Needs political/direct action

47. Scenario 2 (The Bad) Current Market Structure is Maintained Limited increase in Competition Digital Divide Remains Inequality of Access a factor

48. Scenario 3 (The Ugly) More corporate failures Return to the old PNO model Fragmentation of the Market Equality of Access denied

49. BACK TO SERENATE IN GENERAL

50. PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES?