Quantifying the Digital Divide: Quantifying the Digital Divide Prepared by Les Cottrell, SLAC for World Bank meeting , Feb 7, 2004 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk05/world-bank-feb05.ppt


Goal: Goal Measure the network performance for developing regions From developed to developing & vice versa Between developing regions & within developing regions Use simple tool (PingER/ping) Ping installed on all modern hosts, low traffic interference, Provides very useful measures Originated in High Energy Physics, now focused on DD Persistent (data goes back to 1995), interesting history Monitoring site Remote site PingER coverage Jan 2005


World View: World View S.E. Europe, Russia: catching up Latin Am., Mid East, China: keeping up India, Africa: falling behind C. Asia, Russia, S.E. Europe, L. America, M. East, China: 4-5 yrs behind India, Africa: 7 yrs behind Important for policy makers Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a household in N. America or Europe


Loss to world from US: Loss to world from US 2001 Dec-2003 In 2001 12 % BUT by December 2003 It had improved to 77%


Loss to Africa (example of variability): Loss to Africa (example of variability)


From Developing Regions : From Developing Regions As expected Brazil to L. America is good Actually dominated by Brazil to Brazil To Chile & Uruguay poor since goes via US Brazil (Sao Paolo) Novosibirsk NSK to Moscow used to be OK but loss went up in Sep. 2003 GLORIAD may help Novosibirsk


Within Developing Regions: Within Developing Regions In ’80s many Eu countries connected via US Today often communications within developing regions to go via developed region, e.g. Rio to Sao Paola goes directly within Brazil But Rio to Buenos Aires goes via Florida And… NIIT – NSC (Rawalpindi – Islamabad) few miles apart, Route goes via England!!!! Takes longer to go few miles than to SLAC! Doubles international link traffic, increases delays, increases dependence on others Within a region can be big differences between sites/countries, due to service providers


Compare with TAI: Compare with TAI UN Technology Achievement Index (TAI)


Collaborations/funding: Collaborations/funding Good news: Active collaboration with NIIT Pakistan to develop network monitoring including PingER Travel funded by US State department for 1 year FNAL & SLAC continue support for PingER management and coordination Bad news (currently unfunded, could disappear): DoE funding for PingER terminated Proposal to EC 6th framework with ICTP, ICT Cambridge UK, CONAE Argentina, Usikov Inst Ukraine, STAC Vietnam VUB Belgium rejected Proposal to IDRC/Canada February rejected Hard to get funding for operational needs (~0.3 FTE) For quality data need constant vigilance (host disappear, security blocks pings, need to update remote host lists …)


Summary: Summary Performance from U.S. & Europe is improving all over Performance to developed countries are orders of magnitude better than to developing countries Poorer regions 5-10 years behind Poorest regions Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia Some regions are: catching up (SE Europe, Russia), keeping up (Latin America, Mid East, China), falling further behind (e.g. India, Africa)


Further Information: Further Information PingER project home site http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ PingER methodology (presented at I2 Apr 22 ’04) http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/i2-method-apr04.ppt ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-jan05/20050206-netmon.doc ICFA/SCIC home site http://icfa-scic.web.cern.ch/ICFA-SCIC/


Extra slides: Extra slides


Countries covered: Countries covered Sites in 114 countries are monitored Goal to have 2 sites/country Reduce anomalies Orange countries are in developing regions and have only one site Megenta no longer have a monitored site (pings blocked)


View from CERN: View from CERN Confirms view from N. America From the PingER project August 2004.


Another view of Improvements: Another view of Improvements Increase in fraction of good sites