1 / 15

Measuring The Digital Divide

Measuring The Digital Divide. Prepared by: Les Cottrell SLAC , Shahryar Khan NIIT/SLAC , Jared Greeno SLAC , Qasim Lone NIIT/SLAC Presentation to Princess Sumaya of Jordan on the occasion of her visit to SLAC, January 18, 2008. Agenda. Why do we Measure?

karlyn
Download Presentation

Measuring The Digital Divide

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring The Digital Divide Prepared by: LesCottrellSLAC, Shahryar KhanNIIT/SLAC, Jared GreenoSLAC, Qasim LoneNIIT/SLAC Presentation to Princess Sumaya of Jordan on the occasion of her visit to SLAC, January 18, 2008

  2. Agenda • Why do we Measure? • Methodology of measuring Internet performance • Overall Internet performance of the world today • Validation against other measurements • Conclusions & further information

  3. Why Measure? • In the Information Age Information Technology (IT) is the major productivity and development driver. • Lower investment than in Industrial age (just network & computer vs. roads, railways, ports, machine shops etc.) • Travel & the Internet have made a global viewpoint critical • One Laptop Per Child ($100 computer) • New thin client paradigm, servers do work, requires networking (Google: “Negroponte $100 computer”) • Enables “Internet Kiosk & Cafe” can make big difference • So we need to understand and set expectations on the accessibility, performance, costs etc. of the Internet

  4. Methodology • Use SLAC led PingER project: • Arguably the world’s most extensive Active End-to-End Internet Monitoring project

  5. PingER Methodology Uses ubiquitous ping >ping remhost Remote Host (typically a server) Monitoring host Internet 10 ping request packets each 30 mins Once a Day Ping response packets Data Repository @ SLAC Measure Round Trip Time & Loss

  6. PingER Deployment • PingER project originally (1995) for measuring network performance for US, Europe and Japanese HEP community - now mainly R&E sites • Extended this century to measure Digital Divide: • Collaboration with International Centre for Theoretical Studies, Trieste • International Committee for Future Accelerators (ICFA) • >150 countries (99% world’s connected population) • 2 monitoring stations in Palestine, working with SESAME • Monitor (40 in 14 countries) • Beacons ~ 90 • Remote sites (~700)

  7. World Measurements: Min RTT from US • Maps show increased coverage • Min Round Trip Time (RTT) indicates best possible, i.e. no queuing • >600ms probably geo-stationary satellite • Between developed regions min-RTT dominated by distance • Little improvement possible • Only a few places still using satellite for international access, mainly Africa & Central Asia 2000 2008 2006

  8. World throughput Derived throughput ~ 8 * 1460 /(RTT * sqrt(loss)) Mathis et. al World divides into 3: Europe, US/Canada, E. Asia, Australia/NZ L America, SE Asia, M East S & C Asia & Africa Behind Europe 6 Yrs: Russia, Latin America 7 Yrs: Mid-East, SE Asia 10 Yrs: South Asia 11 Yrs: Cent. Asia 12 Yrs: Africa South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa are in Danger of Falling Even Farther Behind

  9. SESAME (www.sesame.org.jo) • SESAME will have scientists collaborating from the Middle East and across the world. • Success will depend on the computer network performance • Transfer of data • Meetings, VoIP, video • Experiment access & control • Sharing information & ideas… • Working with SESAME (Hafeez Hoorani) to set up measurements & analysis at SESAME in Jordan • Focused on SESAME’s needs • Already have collaborations with other SESAME countries: • National University of Sciences & Technology Pakistan • Palestine: Al Quds University, Jerusalem & Islamic University of Gaza

  10. Validation • Many indices from ITU, UNDP, CIA, World Bank try to classify countries by their development • Difficult: what can be measured, how useful is it, how well defined, how changes with time, does it change country to country, cost of measuring, takes time to gather & often out of date, subjective • Typically use GDP, life expectancy, literacy, education, phone lines, Internet penetration etc. • E.g. HDI, DOI, DAI, NRI, TAI, OI .. In general agree with one another (R2~0.8) • Given importance of Internet in enabling development in the Information age some metrics we can measure: • International bandwidth • Number of hosts, number of Autonomous Systems • PingER Internet performance • See if agree with development indices. • If not may point to bad PingER data or illuminate reasons for differences • If agree quicker, cheaper to get, continuous, not as subjective • Working to extend PingER coverage (120=>156 countries, 45 in Africa)

  11. Mid. East &Neighbors HDI related to GDP, life expectancy, tertiary education etc. • There is a good correlation between the 2 measures • Big diversity (factor 10) between Mid East countries • Mid East similar to North Africa • E. Africa poor, limited by satellite access • W. Africa big differences, some (Senegal) can afford SAT3 fibre others use satellite • Great diversity between & within regions

  12. Digital Opportunity Index (ITU 2006) • 180 countries, recent (data 2005, announce 2006), full coverage 2004-2005, 40 leaders have 2001-2005 • 11 indicators: • (Coverage by mobile telephony, Internet tariffs, #computers, fixed line phones, mobile subscribers, Internet users)/population • Working with ITU to see if PingER can help. • Add countries • 130>150 • Increase coverage

  13. Correlation Loss vs ITU/DOI • Good correlation, Africa worst off

  14. Conclusions • Poor performance affects data transfer, multi-media, VoIP, IT development & country performance / development • Digital Divide exists between regions, within regions, within countries, rural vs cities, between age groups… • Decreasing use of satellites, expensive, but still needed for many remote countries in Africa and C. Asia • Last mile problems, and network fragility • International Exchange Points needed • Progressive policies (transparency, competition, education … • Internet performance (non subjective, relatively easy/quick to measure) correlate strongly with economic/technical/development indices • Increase coverage of monitoring to understand Internet performance

  15. More Information • PingER Project: • www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ • Report on Digital Divide: • www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan07/ • Acronym Glossary (Google for more information): • DAI, NRI, TAI, OI = various economic development indices • DOI = Digital Opportunity Index • GDP = Gross Domestic Product • HDI = Human Development Index • HEP = High Energy Physics • IT = Information Technology • ITU = International Telecommunications Union • R&E = Research and Education • RTT = Round Trip Time • SAT3 = A fibre system connecting the W. Coast of Africa • UNDP = United Nations Development Programme • VoIP = Voice over IP • WIS = World Information Society

More Related