Report identifying issues related to the geographic coverage of European research and education networking
| dc.contributor.author | Bonac, Marko | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martin, John | |
| dc.contributor.author | The Network Startup Resource Center (NSRC), University of Oregon | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-13T23:31:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-11-13T23:31:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2003-11-28 | |
| dc.description | 49 pages | |
| dc.description.abstract | The topic of this report is the current state of research and education networking in wider Europe. It focuses on geographic variations and in particular on the digital divide between the most developed and least developed National Research and Education Networks (NRENs). A major part of this report is based on a comprehensive survey of NRENs in "Neighboring Countries" carried out in spring 2003. The geographic coverage of this report is the "Neighboring Countries" of the European Economic Area, which for the purposes of this report are defined as the ten countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) that plan to join the European Union on 1 May 2004 and eight other European countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, and Turkey). The concepts of equal opportunities for researchers and of the digital divide are central to this study. Equal opportunity is the goal, but we have found that in Europe today there is a significant digital divide and that there is a real risk of "research exclusion". Research network provision - The survey reviewed the current standard of research network provision in the Neighboring Countries. There is a great variation between countries. Several accession states have research networks of a high standard. Elsewhere there are some countries with no effective research network at all. Most lie somewhere in between. It should be emphasized that no country is entirely free of problems and, equally, there are none without some positive aspects. Overall, fourteen of the eighteen countries reported major problems either at the international, national or LAN level. From the detailed responses it is clear that the lack of low-cost high-speed lines is seen as the major obstacle to improving research network provision. This is due to a lack of competition and the continuing dominance of the (ex-)monopoly telecommunications operators. The situation is similar to that in EU countries ten years ago. However, some of the fourteen countries have succeeded in taking the opportunity to acquire dark fibre and this has enabled them to leapfrog and rapidly develop quite an advanced network. Those who have not succeeded yet in doing this lag behind, especially in the development of their backbone capacity. Some conclusions derived from this study - Firstly, the digital divide exists in research networking in Europe and to such a level that, if uncorrected, will prevent the goal of equal opportunities for researchers being attained. Secondly, in the countries most affected by the digital divide the case for effective government support for research networking still needs to be made. This is an area where the European Commission, national governments, TERENA and the NREN community all need to play their part. Thirdly, looking to the future, we conclude that research exclusion is a real risk in most of the Neighboring Countries and that this will obstruct attempts to build the European Research Area. Many national governments are aware of the risks of information exclusion and recognize the need to follow the lead of eEurope in building an Information Society. Far fewer perceive the dangers posed by the digital divide in research networking and the need to close this gap. Proposed steps to achieve equal opportunities for research and education - First, we do see an opportunity to make major strides towards diminishing the digital divide. If an NREN can get access to dark fibre, then it can, within the same budget, immediately upgrade the network capacity by as much as a factor of 100. In a monopoly situation it is not easy to get access to dark fibre; however, we have found examples where this has been done successfully. Secondly, there is wealth of testimony to the fact that participation in joint projects has been helpful to the NRENs in Neighboring Countries. These are joint projects with other NRENs from all parts of Europe that often, but not always, have been supported by EU funding. This should be continued and extended to cover the new countries. For these countries, a small amount of funding could make a large difference. Finally, the survey shows that the European Union has already proved to be very influential in persuading governments in Neighboring Countries that are accession states or aspire to EU membership to commit to the Information Society. Therefore the EU could be equally persuasive in showing the importance of research networking. Specifically, the EU should help drive the further liberalization of telecommunications and in particular help to persuade national governments that NRENs should get access to dark fibre. The EU could also support the investments in research and education infrastructure inside accession countries through other measures (e.g. Structural Funds). | |
| dc.identifier.other | IST-2001-34925 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/30188 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | Information Society Technologies | |
| dc.rights | Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-US | |
| dc.subject | geographic coverage, networking, Europe, research networks, national education, research | |
| dc.title | Report identifying issues related to the geographic coverage of European research and education networking | |
| dc.type | Other |