VERA – Forward Visions on the European Research Area

VERA is funded by the European Union's FP7 programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 290705

Study into European research and education networking as targeted by eEurope

Code: B11

Primary project information

Lead: TRANS-EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORKING ASSOCIATION
Additional project partners: DELIVERY OF ADVANCED NETWORK TECHNOLOGY TO EUROPE LIMITED, THE ACADEMIA EUROPAEA TRUST, FONDATION EUROPEENNE DE LA SCIENCE, DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET
Type of activity: EC funded project
Date conducted: 01-05-2002 - 2003-12-31
Date of Publication: 2003
Duration: 20 MONTHS
Summary: The SERENATE studies have the broad aim of providing inputs to the European Commission on initiatives that could help to keep the evolution of European research networking at the forefront of worldwide development, and enhance the competitiveness of the European Research Area. The SERENATE project contributes to achieving these policy goals by investigating the technical, organisational and financial aspects, the market conditions and the regulatory environment. http://www.serenate.org/overview.html
Financed by: EC funded project
Budget: 959890 EURO
Research area/market/industry/sector: Research and education networking
Main report (full title): Study into European research and education networking as targeted by eEurope (also several reports available at www.serenate.org): D21: Summary report on the SERENATE studies, D19: Report on Final Workshop results, D18: Report outlining scenarios for the evolution of the pan-European infrastructure for European research and education networking, D16: Report identifying issues related to the geographic coverage of European research and education networking, D15: Report on examples of extension of research networks to education and other user communities, D14: Report discussing future scenarios for the funding of network infrastructure in the European research networking community, and of related costs, D13: Report on the expected evolution of international connectivity in Europe and to other continents over the next five years, D10: Report on the networking needs of users in the European research community (short version), D10: Report on the networking needs of users in the European research community (5 MB), D9: Report on the availability and characteristics of equipment for next-generation networks, D8: Report on workshop on National Research and Education Network models (7 MB), D7: Report on the expected development of the regulatory situation in European countries relevant for the SERENATE project, D6: Report on present status of international connectivity in Europe and to other continents, D4: Report on workshop on operators' views on infrastructure and likely evolution, D3: Report on the experience of various communities that have experimented with "alternative" models of infrastructures, D1: Report on initial workshop results

GRAND CHALLENGES

Technical Challenges: Digital Divide (inside Europe): Major issue; Needs political action (and money!) to make any impact. (summary report, p. 32)
Technical Challenges Shortlist: Public action and public funding is needed to cross digital divide
Mobility Challenges: Provision of good IT infrastructures is also an important factor that can influence the migration of high-quality researchers. (Summary report, p. 46)
Mobility Challenges Shortlist: IT infrastructure as important factor for migration of high-quality researchers

Summary of relevant aspects

Connecting fields: Provision of good IT infrastructures is also an important factor that can influence the migration of high-quality researchers.
Aspects of ERA Governance: There is a potential conflict between two fundamental EU-policy concepts: equal opportunities for researchers wherever they are (ERA) vs. subsidiarity. Issue of Seranate “equality of opportunity” for researchers and students in different countries across Europe. (Summary report, p. 56)
Other Aspects of Governance: The new EU framework for telecommunications regulation aims to create a competitive market for telecommunications services and it was foreseen to be implemented by mid-2003. The implementation is, however, delayed in several countries. The development of real competition in the telecommunications markets may still be hampered. (Summary report, p. 54)
Background information: The current situation is that national research and education networks and the wider European research networking community are at the forefront of technological developments. While much of the history of European research networking over the past two decades was characterized by the need to keep up with developments in North America, currently Europe has a leading position in many aspects of networking. In the past three years, Europe has taken up the challenge of Gigabit networking. Gigabit networks are being implemented by a number of national research and education networking organizations, and in other countries plans for such networks are being developed. At the European level, the GÈANT interconnect network is a significant step forward, offering a wide coverage of 2.5 Gb/s capacity and early introduction of 10 Gb/s in part of the network. Furthermore it is likely that the GÈANT network in the future will deploy some links with speeds at or above 100 Gb/s. The Serenate project contributes to achieving these networking goals by investigating the strategic aspects of the development of high-speed networks, looking into technical, organizational and financial aspects, the market conditions and regulatory environment.

Scenarios

Scenario 1: 7.1. The Tailor-made Networking Scenario
The scenario envisages that there will be positive developments regarding the cost and availability of pan- European infrastructure, giving rise to enhanced demand from users, and in particular advanced users with specific and well-defined networking needs. As a consequence, in addition to supporting the "average user", the European research networking community will be faced with the challenge of organising specific support for groups of users. In this scenario, "tailor-made" networking, where the needs of a limited set of demanding users have a significant influence on the service portfolio and operational support, will cause organisational change and development in the NRENs. From the point of view of the supply of connectivity, the competitive market will continue to develop both geographically and in time as a result of effective implementation of the regulatory framework of the European Union. This means that for those countries where international connectivity is currently based on SDH, there will be a move to DWDM connections. For all locations, network operators will provide connectivity at prices that are closely related to their underlying costs of network provision.
Looking at the current GÉANT costs and applying the assumptions described above, the total network capacity could increase significantly at no extra cost. In addition, increasing volumes of DWDM will give rise to continuing reductions in unit costs. A further positive aspect of this scenario will be that the current very significant smoothing in the GÉANT cost sharing, which means that there is cross-subsidising between cheaper locations and more expensive locations, will be unnecessary. It will still be necessary to develop an equitable cost-sharing approach that mitigates the effects of distance. The current cost-sharing model is based on annual demand for global connectivity. In this scenario, a more flexible way of allocating costs to significant users will be developed, so that their usage will be more precisely reflected in the costs incurred. (D18, p. 23)
Scenario 2: 7.2. The Networking-For-Many Scenario
In this scenario, there will be limited change as regards the competitiveness in the market place, and the current digital divide in research networking in Europe will remain an important factor. In order to overcome the problem of relatively expensive transmission routes, a self-provision approach to transmission is introduced. Because of the rather large investment costs required to achieve this, in general the effect of the approach will be to yield more capacity rather than to reduce overall costs. In order to justify the finances used, NRENs will concentrate on maximising the number of users so that overall traffic volumes will increase. This will be the case particularly in smaller countries, where NRENs will extend their services to new groups of users, such as schools, in order to increase usage volumes and thereby benefit from economies of scale.
It is questionable whether in this scenario it will be possible to preserve the current GÉANT-like infrastructure while at the same time providing cost-effective connections, at high capacities, to projects with more limited geographic requirements and specific technical needs. Whether or not that will be possible, will depend partly on the implementation of new and innovative approaches to cost sharing, whereby high-usage applications requiring a limited geography only pay the marginal costs of the connectivity that they consume. Nevertheless, there is a strong possibility that some groups of users will establish their own infrastructures, because they will judge that their special requirements are not met. (D18, p. 23)
Scenario 3: 7.3. The Business-As-Usual Scenario
In this scenario, the market for connectivity will not become significantly more competitive. In some regions, additional "market failures" may even give rise to increased prices and reduced availability of connections. As a consequence, the widening digital divide will exclude the introduction of new countries with a history of a monopoly market and very high telecommunications prices. Developments in the market in the currently involved countries will imply that there will be even greater divergence of the underlying costs of research network provision. There will be no political initiative to address the issue of the digital divide. Therefore, NRENs in countries where prices for international connections are relatively cheap will be unwilling to pay the increased premium that will be needed to reduce the effects of the digital divide, and the cohesion of the GÉANT network will be jeopardised. The service that is provided on a pan-European basis will be limited to a best-efforts IP service that provides basically the lowest common denominator of the services required across Europe. This scenario is likely to lead to the creation of independent high-performance networks that cater for the specific demands of those users who demand high and predictable performance. The geography of those networks will be limited to those regions in Europe where there is a high level of competition in the provision of telecommunications services. Some projects may be able to exploit this approach, but in general there will be no shared pan-European network of any significant level of performance. (D18. p. 24)
Actions/solutions implied: The dramatic nature of this internal “digital divide” in Europe must be drawn to the attention of politicians. the elimination of telecommunications monopolies and the rapid introduction of effective competition among several operators will be crucial factors if this digital divide is to be eliminated in the next say five years. However, any attempt to implement equal opportunities across the European Research Area within five years will depend on strong political commitment, and spending
significant sums of money. Elimination of telecommunications monopolies and the rapid introduction of effective competition among several operators are crucial. Where an NREN does not yet exist, the national government should help set one up and ensure that it is recognised inside and outside the country as the single official NREN. Governments should ensure that there is adequate funding allocated to the NREN and should also ensure that there is adequate funding for their university and research institutions for their networking facilities.University and research management should ensure funds and lobby their governments, politicians and the media on behalf of research networking, in particular highlighting what their country is missing compared to others. The role of the end-users of research networks is crucially important. Unless they argue forcefully for good networking facilities, it is unlikely that the problems will be taken seriously. They should lobby widely and explain that they cannot do their work properly unless they have the facilities that their counterparts in other countries have. NRENS should both lobby and act as a source of information. They should establish close links with government departments, universities and other NREN client institutions, with telecommunications suppliers, and with other NRENs. They should monitor the situation in their own countries, regarding both the capacity of the research networks and the telecommunications market, and compare the status with other countries. NRENS should be pro-active and look for opportunities such as dark fibre. The EU should accept the overall responsibility to reduce and ideally to eliminate the digital divide among the EU member states in research and education networking, and hopefully also help other European countries in this respect.Finally, we believe that the influence of the European Union could be very helpful in enabling NRENs in Neighbouring Countries to make progress towards acquiring a dark fibre infrastructure. In general terms, all European governments, politicians and national regulatory authorities should strive hard to introduce a truly competitive environment for the provision of Gigabit network services.
More specifically, it is very important that governments across the whole of Europe, including those beyond the borders of the European Union, ensure that their NREN, should it so wish, be empowered to install, or lease, its own optical-fibre transmission infrastructure. (Summary report, p. 46)
Who benefits from the actions taken?: European Commission, national governments and funding bodies, management of research and education institutions, and research and education networking organizations

Meta information

Time horizon: 5-10 years
Methods: desk research, interviews, surveys, workshops, scenarios, economic model to calculate the cost implications of various options for a high speed connection between two destinations (http://www.serenate.org/overview.html)
Target Group: research and education networks of Europe, national governments and funding bodies, the European Commission, traditional and "alternative" network operators, equipment manufacturers and, last but not least, the scientific and education community
Objectives: The Serenate project has the broad aim of providing inputs to the European Commission on initiatives that could help to keep the evolution of the European research network at the forefront of world-wide development, and enhance the competitiveness of the European research area. Specifically the Serenate project aims to develop cost estimates for networking scenarios outlined in the eEurope Action Plan. http://www.serenate.org/overview.html
Countries covered: N/A
ERA actors/stakeholders mentioned: research and education networks of Europe, national governments and funding bodies, the European Commission, traditional and "alternative" network operators, equipment manufacturers and, last but not least, the scientific and education community. A list of the members of the project's Steering Committee is attached at http://www.serenate.org/steering-committee.html. Also participants in all workshops can be found in the workshop reports available at http://www.serenate.org/workshops.html
Geographic scope:

Entry Details

Rapporteur: Effie Amanatidou
Rapporteur's organization: UNIMAN
Entry Date: 1.6.2012