1 1 measuring the digital divide les cottrell – slac lecture # 4 presented at the workshop on...
Post on 01-Jan-2016
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
11
Measuring the Digital Divide
Les Cottrell – SLACLecture # 4 presented at the Workshop on Scientific Information in the Digital Age:
Access and Dissemination
ICTP, Trieste, Italy October , 2009
www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk09/ictp-divide.ppt
2
Summary• The Digital Divide world wide, measurements
• Case Study of Africa
• Africa directions– Wireless/fibre, Routing, Costs, Difficulties,
• Conclusions & further information
Factors• Earnings/poverty
• Age
• Rural vs City
• Education/skills
• Developed vs Developing regions– Policies, corruption, conflict, disease, protectionism,
infrastructure (e.g. now power)
3
Where is it (country)Cartogram perspective see
www.geog.qmw.ac.uk/gbhgis/conference/cartogram.html
4
Population
Internet Users 2002
Area
Tertiary Education fromhttp://www.worldmapper.org/
5
Measuring the Divide WorldwideAbv. Name Organization Countries
Date of Data
GDPGross Domestic Product per capita
CIA 229 2001-2006
HDI Human Development Index UNDP 175 2004
DAI Digital Access Index ITU180
1995-2003
NRI Network Readiness IndexWorld Economic Forum
120 2007
TAI Technology Achievement Index UNDP 72 1995-2000DOI Digital Index ITU 180 2004-2005OI Index ITU 139 1996-2003
CPI Corruption Perception IndexTransparency Organization
180 2007
5
Choose most: up-to-date, countries, important factorsHDI & DOI
E.g.:Human Development Index(HDI)• A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth • Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds
weight) and the combined primary, secondary and tertiary education gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weight)
• A decent standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita (or Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in US$).
6
1980
1990 2007
2000
Argentina gets worse in 90’s, S. America improves in 00’s, Africa improving long way behind
E.g. Digital Opportunity Index (DOI)• Based on 11 indicators in 3 groups: Opportunity,
Infrastructure and Utilization: Ideally DOI=1– All homes have ICT devices, all citizens have mobile ICT
devices, everyone using broadband, everyone access to ICT at affordable prices
7
8
One way to measure (PingER) Behind Europe5 Yrs: Russia, Latin America, Mid East 6 Yrs: SE Asia9 Yrs: South Asia12 Yrs: Cent. Asia16 Yrs: Africa
Central Asia, and Africa are in
Danger of Falling Even Farther
behindIn 10 years at the
current rate Africa will be 1000 times
worse than Europe
Derived throughput ~ 8 * 1460 /(RTT * sqrt(loss))Mathis et. al
1993
9
Some Other World Views
Voice & video (de-jitter) Network & Host Fragility
Data TransferCapacity
10
World Measurements: Min RTT from US• Maps show increased coverage • Min RTT indicates best possible, i.e. no queuing• >400ms 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
Loss
11
With TCP (>80% Internet traffic) recovery from loss can take several seconds, such delays make interactive use annoying to impossible.For non TCP multi-media traffic loss causes poor voice/video (VoIP/H323) above 1.5%,loss > 0.5% unacceptable for IPTVhttp://www.slac.stanford.edu/comp/net/wan-mon/tutorial.html#loss
Africa by far worst region,
10-20 times worse than developed regions
Case Study Africa
12
13
Africa is huge, diverse & dreadful access• Hard to get fibre everywhere
• ~ 1B people, over 1000 languages,multi climates
13
Fibres
CapacityFrom Telegeography
14
Mediterranean. & Africa vs HDI
• There is a good correlation between the 2 measures• N. Africa has 10 times poorer performance than Europe• N. Africa several times better than say E. 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
HDI related to GDP, life expectancy, tertiary education etc.
Sub-Saharan broadband cost off-scale
15
www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2009/index.html
Source ITU
16
African Situation
• Access to the internet is so desirable to students in Africa that they spend considerable time and money to get it. Many students surveyed, with no internet connection at their universities, resorted to private, fee-charging internet cafes to study and learn. www.arp.harvard.edu/AfricaHigherEducation/Online.html
Internet Café in Ghana
• School in a secondary town in an East Coast country with networked computer lab spends 2/3rds of its annual budget to pay for the dial-up connection.
– Disconnects Heloise Emdon, Acacia Southern Africa
1 yr of Internet access > average annual income of most Africans, Survey by Paul Budde Communications
• Survey (IHY meeting Ethiopia in November ’07) of leading Universities in 17 countries (will repeat with more clarity):
– Each had tens of 1000’s of students, 1000 or so staff– Best had 2 Mbits, worst dial up 56kbps– Often access restricted to faculty
Demo: ITCP Internet Weather for Africa
• www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/africa-weather08.mov
17
Demo• Shows population=bubble area, y=throughput, x=RTT as a
function of time• Note
– Improved performance & increase of coverage with time
– Africa clusters towards long RTT and poor throughput (bottom left) and generally far worse than rest of world
– African varies by countries (cf Egypt & Ethiopia)
– Big variations year to year
• Correlate with DOI index (opportunity, infrastructure, usage)• by mobile telephony, Internet tariffs, #computers, fixed line phones, mobile subscribers,
Internet users)/population
• http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/pinger-metrics-motion-chart.html
18
Possible Attractions
• Large Population (~1 Billion)
• Youthful population• Saturation of developed
markets makes emerging markets interesting to business (Vital Wave)
• Leapfrog technologies (cell phones, wireless …)
MatureMatureEmerging StrategicEmerging Strategic
Emerging NicheEmerging NicheEmerging LongtermEmerging Longterm
2020http://www.internetworldstats.com/
Africa
Huge growth
~ 3x lower penetration than any other region
huge potential market
21
What is happening: Fibre• GEO-Stationary satellite $/Mbps
300 -1000 x Fibre, severely bandwidth-constrained,high latency
• Up until July 2009 only one submarine Fibre Optic cable to Sub-Saharan Africa, no competition, costly & only W. Coast
• 2010 Football World Cup => scramble to provide fibre optic connections to S. Africa, both E & W Coast
• Multiple providers = competition
• E. Coast: Seacom & TEAMs landed Jul 2009, Seacom working
22
Plans for New Sub-SaharaUndersea Cables to Europe and India by 2011
Seacom (7/09)
EASSy(6/10)
TEAMs(9/09)
WACS(Q2/11)
MaIN One(Q4/10)
GLO1(11/09)
ACE(2011?)
$ 650M $ 265M $ 82M $ 2B ? $ 865 M $ 150 M ???
13.7 kkm 10 kkm 4.5 kkm 13 kkm 14 kkm 9.5 kkm 12 kkm
1.28 Tbps 1.4 Tbps 0.12 – 1.2 Tbps 3.84 Tbps 2.5 Tbps? 0.64 Tbps ???
June 2009 Q1/Q2 2010 Sept. 2009 2010 Q4 2010 Q2 2009 2011
Ambitious plans are once again underway to better-connect Africa
The potential increase in capacity compared to now is 1000X
The issue is whether there is a sustainable market
”People are buying 10-15 times their existing bandwidth. They can get that much for the same sort of cash they’re already spending” Herlighy, Seacom CEO
http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables
SAT3
23
Impact: RTT etc.• As sites move their routing from GEOS to terrestrial
connections, we can expect:– Dramatically reduced Round Trip Time (RTT), e.g. from 700ms to
350ms – seen immediately– Reduced losses and jitter due to higher bandwidth capacity and
reduced contention – when routes etc. stabilized
• Seacom live Thu Jul 23, ‘09 - reported by BBC & CNN
325ms325ms
Big jump Aug 1 ’09 23:00hr
Big jump Aug 1 ’09 23:00hrMedian RTT SLAC to KenyaMedian RTT SLAC to Kenya
• Bkg color=loss Smoke=jitter
• RTT improves by factor 2.2
• Losses reduced• Thruput
~1/(RTT*sqrt(loss)) up factor 3
720ms720ms
24
From ICTP, Trieste, Italy• Even Bigger effect since closer than SLAC
– Median RTT drops 780ms to 225ms, i.e. cut by 2/3rds (3.5 times improvement)
Aug 2ndAug 2nd
Seems to be stabilizing
Seems to be stabilizing
Still big diurnal changes
Still big diurnal changes
25
Next Steps: Going inland
• Extend coverage from landing points to capitals and major cites
• Need fibre connections inland
CentralCentral
NorthernNorthern
SouthernSouthern
• Connect up the rest of the sites & countries (UG, RW, ML..)
Other countries on Seacom• Tanzania, also
dramatic reduction in losses
• Uganda inland via Kenya, 2 step process
• Rwanda inland via UG & KE 3 steps
• Many sites still to connect
SLAC to UgandaSLAC to Uganda
1 direction, Aug 31 direction, Aug 3
Both directions, Aug 15Both directions, Aug 15
Sep 27Sep 27SLAC to TanzaniaSLAC to Tanzania
SLAC to Kigali Inst of Education, RwandaSLAC to Kigali Inst of Education, Rwanda
720ms720ms
320ms320ms
22-25 Sep ‘09
Other Countries
27
750ms750ms 450ms450ms SLAC to AngolaSLAC to Angola• Angola step mid-May, more stable
• Ethiopia Mar ’09, most measured hosts on GEOS
• Zambia half step Aug 20, 09 still trying on 2nd step. Via Namibia & ZA
Aug 20Aug 20
SLAC to ZambiaSLAC to Zambia1 direction1 direction Both directions?Both directions?
• Mozambique May 2007 (via ZA)• Malawi future probably via Mozambique• South Africa since started measurements to it in Feb’05
Why does Haramaya in Dire Dawa have fibre connection before Addis Ababa the capital?
And…• September 6 ’09
Glo-1 ubmarine cable landed in Lagos, Nigeria. This brings competition to the SAT3/WASC/ cable consortium.
• In May 2010 the Main One cable will be landing on the West Coast of Africa, more competition.
• All this adds up to factors of 2 or more times improvement in 1-2 years for many hosts in many African countries. Hopefully this will dramatically help the rate of catch up.
28
Beyond fibres reach• ABUJA Africa's first communications satellite suffered an energy failure just 18 months after its launch - Nov.
2008
• In areas where fibre connections are not available (e.g. rural areas), the main contenders appear to be:– wireless, e.g. microwave, cellphone towers, WiMax etc., – Low Earth Orbiting Satellites (LEOS) for example
Google signed up with Liberty Global and HSBC in a bid to launch 16 LEOS satellites, to bring high-speed internet access to Africa by end 2010,
• gigaom.com/2008/09/09/google-invests-in-satellite-based-internet-startup/
– and weather balloons• www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=694&doc_id=178131&• http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/undersea-broadband-fiber-optic-cables-to-africa/
• Wireless mobility– then wireless (cell phone, wimax, LEOS…) – cell phone growth leads Internet growth by 4.5 years– failure just 18 months after its launch - Nov. 2008
29
Mobile• Leapfrogs
– landlines– PCs
30
Use: e-mail, research purchase products online, listings, maps traffic info, IM, searches, banking, news
– Landlines, desktops
Need for NRENs & IXPs
31
32
IXPs a Major Issue for African Internet• International bandwidth prices are biggest contributor to high costs• African users effectively subsidise international transit providers!• Fibre optic links are few and expensive reliance on satellite
connectivity• High satellite latency slow speed, high prices• Growth of Internet businesses is inhibited• In 2003 10 out of 53 countries had IXPs• More IXPs lower latency, lower costs, more usage• Both national and regional IXPs needed• Also needed: regional carriers, more fibre optic infrastructure
investment• Need NRENs country ->region
– Then international IXPsInternetInternet
AA BBIXP•Américo Muchanga
americo@uem.mz, •25 September 2005
33
Routing• Used to typically go through a satellite provider
such as Newskies• Now TZ, UG & KE go via London
and Teleglobe & terrestrial fibre• IXPs starting up, e.g.
• S. Africa direct to Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique
• Burkina Faso direct to Mali, Senegal, Benin
• Ubuntunet Alliance > GEANT• Founders: Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Rwanda South Africa• Joined by DRC, SD, TZ, UG
S. Africa
Burkina Faso
34
Next Steps: Let’s get together• Get leaders such as universities, academic
establishments (teach the teachers) to get togeher to form NRENs for country
• Bargain for cheaper rates• BW most expensive
worldwide ($4K/Mbps)• Then NRENS get together to
create International eXchange Points (IXPs)– Avoid intercountry links
using expensive intercontinental links via Europe and the US.
From Broubecker Barry 2008From Broubecker Barry 2008
Need for alternate
routes• Effect of
Mediterranean fibre cuts Dec 2008
• confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/IEPM/Effects+of+Mediterranean+Fibre+Cuts+December+2008
35
Kbits/s
RTTSLAC to Oman
8:30am 19 Dec
0:00am 22 Dec
• ’05 Karachi cuts• Mar 14, Karachi
Water & Sewage digs up fibre – down 3 hours
• Jun-Jul 12 day outage,huge loss of confidence & business – satellite b’up inadeqaute
Effect varied
by country
36
• Previous cut Jan 31st 2008
37
Conclusions: The bad• Poor performance affects data transfer, multi-media,
VoIP, IT development & country performance / development
• DD exists between regions & countries, rural vs cities, poor vs rich, old vs young…
• Decreasing use of satellites, expensive, but still needed for many remote countries in Africa and C. Asia
• Last mile problems, and network fragility• Current providers (cable and satellite) have a lot to loose
– Many of these have close links to regulators and governments (e.g. over 50% of ISPs in Africa are government controlled)
• Africa worst by all measures (throughput, loss, jitter, DOI, international bandwidth, users, costs …) and falling further behind.
Conclusions: There is Hope• World cup: international fibre access + competition• LEOS• Leapfrog last mile fixed wire with wireless• Cheaper end points: OLTP, net computer, smart-phones
• Banding together of universities => leverage influence & get deals => NRENs => IXPsUsers– E.g. Ubuntunet, Bandwidth Initiative
• Standards:– Harmonization of regulations country to country– Cheaper cell phone, can’t afford multiple technologies & frequencies
• Regulatory regimes becoming:– more open/transparent, less resistant to change
38
“The way we develop here in Africa will be different from the way the big nations
developed. They grew up with computers. We are growing up with mobile phones.
- Fritz Ekwoge”
PingER: African coverage• Host monitored in ~50 of 60 countries (98.7% pop)• 131 hosts monitored in Africa• Cannot find hosts in Comoros, Eq. Guinea, Sao Tome, (while here added Chad, and a 2nd host in Guinea)
• Yellow only 1 host (so could be anomalous, e.g. Libya)
• Need help for contacts: (cottrell@slac.stanford.edu)
39
40
More Information• Case Study: Fibre for Sub Saharan Africa, see
– https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/IEPM/New+E.+Coast+of+Africa+Fibre
• Mediterranean Fibre cuts:– https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/IEPM/Effects+of+Fibre+Outage+thr
ough+Mediterranean
– https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/IEPM/Effects+of+Mediterranean+Fibre+Cuts+December+2008
• ITU/WIS Report 2006 & 2007 (or Google: “WSIS Report 2007”)– www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/worldinformationsociety/2007/report.html– www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2009/index.html
• Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa– www.arp.harvard.edu/AfricaHigherEducation/Online.html
• PingER– www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger, sdu.ictp.it/pinger/africa.html– www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan09/
• Global Information watch: www.giswatch.org • Need network contacts in Africa: cottrell@slac.stanford.edu
41
Extra Slides
42
Trends:Losses
• N. America, Europe, E. Asia, Oceania < 0.1%
• Underdeveloped 0.3- 2% loss, Africa worst.
• Mainly distance independent
• Big impact on performance, time outs etc.
• Losses > 2.5 % have big impact on interactivity, VoIP etc.
43
• ~ Distance independent• Calculated as Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV)
– IPDV = Dri = Ri – Ri-1
• Measures congestion• Little impact on web, email• Decides length of VoIP codec buffers, impacts streaming• Impacts (with RTT and loss) the quality of VoIP
Trendlines for IPDV from SLAC to World Regions
N. America E. Asia
Europe
Australasia
S. Asia Africa
Russia
L. America SE Asia
C Asia
M East
Usual division into Developed vs Developing
Jitter
44
VoIP & MOS• Telecom uses Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for quality
– 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent– With VoIP codecs best can get is 4.2 to 4.4– Typical usable range 3.5 to 4.2– Calc. MOS from PingER: RTT, Loss, Jitter (www.nessoft.com/kb/50)– Africa & C. Asia not possible, S. Asia with patience OK
MOS of Various Regions from SLACImprovements very clear, often due to move from satellite to land line.Similar results from CERN (less coverage)
Usab
le
45
Leading
Country Population
Int'l BW Mbps
Int'l BW / capita (bps)
Internet Users
Internet users/ 1000 capita
BW (bps)/ Internet User
DOI Rank
Egypt 82,073,660.00 3784 46.105 1000000 12.1842 3784 90
South Africa 43,743,316.00 881.5 20.152 1012500 23.1464 870.617 91
Senegal 12,938,350.00 775 59.899 19351 1.49563 40049.6 112
Cameroon 18,569,348.00 155 8.3471 6500 0.35004 23846.2 137
Nigeria 139,070,856.00 150 1.0786 350000 2.5167 428.571 155
Kenya 38,213,024.00 113.39 2.9673 80000 2.09353 1417.38 164
Uganda 31,621,980.00 100 3.1624 8000 0.25299 12500 152
Burkina Faso 14,866,133.00 76 5.1123 14238 0.95775 5337.83 163
Cote d'Ivoire 18,465,326.00 55.42 3.0013 13747 0.74448 4031.43 144
Benin 8,349,959.00 47 5.6288 6396 0.76599 7348.34 147
Niger 13,364,797.00 30 2.2447 3117 0.23322 9624.64 179
Mozambique 21,379,584.00 18.5 0.8653 25000 1.16934 740 169
Ethiopia 78,697,922.00 10 0.1271 12155 0.15445 822.707 173
Namibia 2,067,433.00 9 4.3532 19000 9.19014 473.684 109
46
Scenario Cases
4. Sep 05, international fibre to Pakistan fails for 12 days, satellite backup can only handle 25% traffic, call centres given priority. Research & Education sites cut off from Internet for 12 days
Heloise Emdon, Acacia Southern
AfricaUNDP Global Meeting for ICT for
Development, Ottawa 10-13 July
3. Primary health care giver, somewhere in Africa, with sonar machine, digital camera and arrangement with national academic hospital and/or international health institute to assist in diagnostics. After 10 dial-up attempts, she abandons attempts to connect
1. School in a secondary town in an East Coast country with networked computer lab spends 2/3rds of its annual budget to pay for the dial-up connection.– Disconnects
2. Telecentre in a country with fairly good connectivity has no connectivity– The telecentre resorts to generating revenue from photocopies,
PC training, CD Roms for content.
47
Unreachability • All pings of a set fail ≡ unreachable
• Shows fragility, ~ distance independent
• Developed regions US, Canada, Europe, Oceania, E Asia lead– Factor of 10 improvement in 8 years
• Africa, S. Asia followed by M East & L. America worst off
• Africa NOT improving
US & CanadaEurope
E Asia
C Asia
SE Europe
SE Asia
S AsiaOceania
Africa
L America M East
Russia
DevelopedRegions
DevelopingRegions
48
Throughput• Derive from:
Thru ~ 8 * 1460 _____________(RTT * sqrt(loss))
49
• Note step changes
• Africa v. poor
• S. Asia improving
• N. America, Europe, E Asia, Oceania lead
Norm_thru = thru * min_rtt(remote_region)/min_rtt(monitoring_region)Thru = 1460 / (RTT*sqrt(loss)) Mathis et. al
Norm Thruput
50
World thruput vs ITU-OI Behind Europe6 Yrs: Russia, Latin America 7 Yrs: Mid-East, SE Asia10 Yrs: South Asia11 Yrs: Cent. Asia12 Yrs: Africa
South Asia, Central Asia, and
Africa are in Danger of Falling
Even Farther Behind
51
Overall (Aug 06)• ~ Sorted by Average throughput• Within region performance better (black ellipses)• Europe, N. America, E. Asia generally good• M. East, Oceania, S.E. Asia, L. America acceptable• C. Asia, S. Asia poor, Africa bad (>100 times worse)
Mo
nit
ore
d C
ou
ntr
y
52
Bandwidth & Internet use• Note Log scale for BW• India region leader• Pakistan leads bw/pop• Nepal very poor
• Pakistan leads % users• Sri Lanka leads hosts%
%• Pakistan leads bw/pop• Nepal, Bangladesh,
Afghanistan very poor
Bit
/s
53
DAI vs. Thru & S. Asia• More details, also show populations• Compare S. Asia with developed countries, C. Asia
54
S. Asia Coverage
• Monitor 44 hosts in region.
• 6 Monitoring hosts
Loss from CERN
Min-RTT from CERN
55
S Asia MOS & thruput
Mean Opinion Score to S Asia from US
Daily throughputs from US to S Asia
• Last mile problems• Divides into 2
– India, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
– Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan
Usable
RTT ms
RTT NIIT to QAU Pak (1 week)
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
• weekend vs. w’day, day vs night = heavy congestion
Pakistan
56
Americas• Cuba poor throughput
due to satellite RTTs and high losses
• US & Canada lead
57
OECD Broadband
• Graphic from San Jose Mercury, 11/22/07
58
Subscribers /people
Subscribers / 100 people
• OECD median=27+-0.7
• ITU Africa 3.34+-3.1
59
Satellites vs Terrestrial• Terrestrial links via SAT3 & SEAMEW (Med & W. Africa)
– monopoly bandwidth is sold for $4.5K-12K per Mbps/mo (only 5% used)– Equal satellite prices
PingER min-RTT measurements fromS. African TENET monitoring station
Mike Jensen,Paul HamiltonTENET, S. Africa
Normal Satellite $/Mbps 300-1000x fibre costs
Only 14 of 49 Sub-Saharan countries have fibre
NEPAD ‘04
University
60
Divide within Divide: Africa Throughput
• Overall Loss performance is poor to bad
• Factor of 10 difference between Angola & Libya
• N Africa best, E Africa worst• Big differences within regions • In 2002, BW/capita ranged
from 0.02 to over 40bps - a factor of over 1000
99 hosts
45 Countries
61
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, ASNs– 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)
62
Thru vs Int. BW
• Hard to get to countries (E. Africa, C Asia)
• Last mile not good (China)
• ’07 vs ’05 (Aus & NZ)
• Emphasize Internet deploy (Estonia)
• Host choice (Congo, Libya)
Derive: thru ~ 8 * 1460 /(RTT * sqrt(loss))Mathis et. al
Good Correlation
norm_thru = thru * min_RTT(rem_region) / min_rtt(mon_region)
63
PingER vs Speedtest• www.zdnet.com.au/broadband/results.htm
– Application sends known amount of data between your computer and servers– Measures throughput saves results by country, ISP
• About 30 countries have <= 3 attempts
Server in Aus.
AU&NZ agree
Absolute values agree
Strong Correlation
Africa (magenta) worst off
64
Digital Opportunity Index (ITU 2006)• 180 countries, recent (data 2005, announce 2006), full
coverage 2004-2005, 40 leaders have 2001-2005• 11 indicators (grouped into: opportunity, infrastructure & utilization)
– (Coverage by mobile telephony, Internet tariffs, #computers, fixed line phones, mobile subscribers, Internet users)/population
• Worked with ITU to see if PingER can help.– Added countries
• 130>150
– Increase coverage
65
Correlation Loss vs DOI• Good correlation, Africa worst off
66
• Automate uploading etc. via Internet
67
Broadband Subscribers
www.telegeography.com
68
• SAT-3• Projects in progress (before soccer World cup in S. Africa)
– EASSy complete end 2008, S. Africa to Port Sudan. Consortium members include most of the national telcos from the various East African nations, including Telekom South Africa, Telkom Kenya, Zanzibar Telecom, Uganda Telecom, TDM Mozambique, Djibouti Telecom, Sentech, Telecom Malagasy, Rwanda Telecom, and Botswana Telecom, with about a dozen other likely participants.
– SEACOM (2009) – S. Africa to EU and IN, also lands in Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya and UAE
– TEAMS - Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. – UHURUNET and its terrestrial segment, UMOJANET capacity of
3.84 Terabits/sec, the undersea submarine cable is intended to link the entire continent of Africa, with the outside world including Europe, Brazil, India and the Middle East
– UBUNTUNET (Cisco router in London, to connect GEANT)
69
70
SAT3
71
Fibre Links Future
– SAT-3 shareholders such as Telecom Namibia, which has no landing point of its own find it cheaper to use satellite
• Will EASSy follow suit?• Another option to EASSy: since
Sudan and Egypt are now connected via fibre, and the link will shortly extend to Ethiopia, there are good options for both Kenya and Uganda/Rwanda and Tanzania to quickly link to the backbones via this route
• SAT3 connects eight countries on the W coast of the continent to Europe and the Far East. Operating as a cartel of monopoly state-owned telecommunication providers, prices have barely come down since it began operating in 2002
Mike Jensen
72
73
74
Costs compared to West• Sites in many countries have bandwidth< US residence
– “10 Meg is Here”, www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=104415
• Africa: $5460/Mbps/mo– W Africa $8K/Mbps/mo– N Africa $520/Mbps/mo
(IDRC study Jan 2005)
1 yr of Internet access > average annual income of most Africans, Survey by Paul Budde Communications (OECD 2.5%, US 1.45%)
Bandwidth Initiative: Coalition of 11 African Universities (MZ, TZ, UG, GH, NG, KY) + four major US Foundations to provide satellite thru
Intelsat at 1/3 cost ($7.3K/Mbps/m => $2.23K)
OECD: median=$16/Mbps/moJapan=$3.09/Mbps/moOECD study on Broadband Nov 2007
Bandwidth in Africa is hundreds of times more expensive than in Europe or
N. America
75
Why Make Internet Measurements?• In the Information Age Information Technology (IT)
is the major productivity and development driver., particularly science & education
• 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”), driving Intel & AMD cheap net-books
– Internet enabled cell phones (e.g. iPhone)– 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
top related