in collaboration with Jacek Gajewski
Research and Academic Computer Network in Poland
NASK
Academic Networks in Central and Eastern Europe
The country by country description of the networking situation presented in this document is based on the reports from member states presented during the CEENet General Assembly meeting in Bled, Slovenia (March 1995). It should be regarded as a preliminary because there was no time to consult the final text with representatives of the countries. Therefore only Author of the report bears all responsibility for the errors and omissions.
Eastern Europe has been for many years the shorthand reference for those countries in the political/military and economic sphere of the Soviet Union i.e., under the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or Comecon). The dramatical political development that have transformed Central and Eastern Europe appears to be closely linked to communication. Observers say that the telephone, the fax, and the photocopier were critical in the erosion of Soviet control. The computer networks, however, did not exist on any significant scale. In many countries of this region the idea of developing computer networks goes back to the late seventies and is connected with centrally financed research projects.
However, those first attempts and their follow up didn't bring any concrete results. The second half of the eighties witnessed gradual (though rather slow in the beginning) changes in this aspect. Many scholars working for western research institutes got acquainted with the vast possibilities of communicating by means of computer networks, whose development had just widely started. In the second half of the eighties first talks with foreign partners took place with the aim to connect certain research institutes to France and Germany. However, the binding legal and administrative regulations concerning hi-tech transfer ruled this possibility out. A partial solution was found; it consisted in making use of accounts in machines abroad which could be reached via modems. This system, however, proved unreliable and not cost-effective. Nevertheless, it gave access to international computer networks. Such accounts were opened, as far as I am aware, in Germany, Switzerland and Denmark. A funny thing is that I received the official refusal from the French side to establish a permanent communication line with Paris in 1987 by e-mail in Warsaw.
Political transformations in CEE countries made it possible to overcome institutional barriers. Several persons have also significantly contributed to solving those problems, like e.g. Dr Ira Fuchs, the author of Bitnet, who pointed out in an interview given to "Science" that political changes in Eastern and Central Europe have convinced him of the necessity to allow those countries to link with international networks. At the same time intensive measures were taken by Dennis Jennings and Frode Greisen, the successive Presidents of EARN. Their efforts proved successful. At the beginning of 1990 the Information Center of Bitnet-Educom Network received a letter from William Clements, director of the Office of Technology and Policy Analysis, US Department of Commerce, which was an answer to the letter from Jim Conklin, director of Educom. The said letter was not easy to comprehend as it had been drawn up in legal and administrative jargon. It was only after the letter was carefully examined by Educom's lawyers that it became clear that the answer was positive.
Yes, it was now possible for East European countries and People's China to link with international networks. Nearly at the same time, at its meeting, which ended in Paris on February 16, COCOM gave its consent to considerably lift restrictions on the exportation of computers and telecommunication equipment to Eastern Europe.. During the meeting of the Board of Directors of EARN in Killarney on 18 May 1990, the decision on the admission of first East European countries as full members to EARN (taken already in April by electronic ballot) was finally ratified. The first country connected to the EARN was Poland. Very soon Czechoslovakia and Hungary followed up.
Since this time we witness very rapid development of the information infrastructure in all those countries. ( Austria belongs only geographically to this region but is included in this survey because of the special role which it plays for the development of the network infrastructure. ACOnet was one of the initiators to create the Central and Eastern European Network Association CEENet and helps many countries in establishing the international connectivity. ) However the starting point of this process was different , therefore the differences in the network development are quite significant. Nevertheless the speed of the changes is very startling and the attempt to present coherent picture of the network situation in all this countries is nearly hopeless because every day bring significant changes.
Nearly two years ago seven countries of this region created networking organization Central and Eastern European Network - CEENet. The main goal of this organization was to provide the common platform enabling coordination of the effort in this field. The idea of such activity proved to be very successful. At the present 19 countries belong to the association . Twice a year a general assembly meeting is held providing the forum for discussion and coordination of the efforts. The association has no rights to take any bounding decision but its role as a forum for coordination proved very successful.
The material presented in this survey was collected during the CEENet General Assembly meeting in Bled, Slovenia (March 1995).
General remarks
The telecommunication infrastructure in the discussed region is very nonhomogeneus. Starting from practically complete lack or technically outdated infrastructure to the modern digital high speed communication backbone. Therefore it is very difficult to draw general conclusions. Nevertheless there are some common points which are worthwhile to enumerate. First of all I am going to discuss the research and academic network. Scientific community has some common features which determine the development of the informatic infrastructure. The second very important aspect of the problem is lack of proper funding or in other words lack of funding which corresponds to the needs.
One of the questions which should be raised is: should the networks in the country be generally accessible networks or networks for academic and research community only?
The answer to this question depends on the financial status of the world of learning. In the beginning the network must be orientated towards serving the needs of the academic and research community. It is this community that is best suited to make use of the network as a tool and is made to do so. In the contemporary world there already are fields of study where the access to the network is a prerequisite condition for doing serious research. All exact sciences provide an example in this respect. According to a recent analysis of NASK users in Poland ( and this result should not be very different in another countries) fall into the following categories:
The analysis clearly demonstrates that a vast majority of the users are representatives of exact sciences, who make up 74% of network users with university level education.
It goes without saying that the academic and research community can hardly work efficiently and do research with no access to the network. On the other hand, layouts on science and research cannot simply keep pace with the growing needs of this community. The first development phase is bound to be followed by stagnation or regress unless some other solution is worked out.
It seems that basing the development of the core network on lines leased for scientific and research purposes solely is not justified from either the economic or technical point of view.
To illustrate my claim let me cite the results of an analysis published in the December issue of Data Communication The analysis predicts that in the USA the rise in income from line lease will fall from 9% in 1994 to 8% in 1995 and will apply to lines of relatively low bit rate (56/64 kb/s). This means that despite traffic growth, the dynamics of needs for leased lines will decrease. Those predictions are obvious once we take into account how quickly frame relay technology and ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) are put into use. The table below presents a comparison of the years 1993 and 1994 with the forecast for 1995.
In millions of USD
1993 income 1994 income 1994 1995 income 1995
increase in % estimate increase in %
Leased lines 11.445 12.475 9 13.473 8
X25 service 1.412 1.567 11 1.708 220
Frame relay 77 231 200 739 220
ATM - 12 - 60 400
It is clear that Frame Relay and ATM technologies are almost bound to dominate the market. It will not pay to lease a line for a limited number of users. The line will usually not be used effectively. It seems far more justified to make use together with other users of a network in which there is frame relay and the bit rate is used to an extent that is needed at the given moment. The same can be said of ATM technology, the only difference being that for economic reasons it is applicable in networks with high bit rate. Another thing is that ATM technology has still not been standarized.
The solution lies in cooperation with other operators to the extent of developing national frame relay or ATM network. The academic and research community can provide qualified staff and even participate in the cost of developing a generally accessible network, and later use it together with the public operator.
This will provide the academic user with connections of high bit rate, while keeping charges as low as possible. The academic and research users are distinguished by high temporary demand for line bit rate (when big data sets are transmitted) with considerably lower average demand. That is why the best solution is the joint usage of connections by different users with different link use parameters. In the future the optimum solution will be to jointly build a core network constituting the first element of an information highway.
Financing:
In each of East and Central European countries computer networks are developing rapidly. However, in many cases, this rapid development is a symptom of chaos. I should like to draw your attention to the apparent barriers to the development of networks and initiate a discussion of how to overcome those barriers.
The lack of the financial resources is a clear constraint. The academic and research community has basically three sources of financing:
a. Own resources of research institutes and institutions of higher education - they are usually too limited to develop anything of a wider range. We are glad if it is possible to build a decent local network.
b. Resources coming from the State budget are earmarked for the performance of a certain, precisely defined task, such as the development of an extensive national network. Those of us, in whose countries such resources are available, can easily develop extensive networks.
c. Foreign grants
Each type of financing gives rise to certain problems. Financing projects from ones own resources imposes technically unjustified constraints. Many problems are also created whilst developing the network by means of foreign grants. The foreign donor usually has his own ideas as to how the system of connections should be implemented and what the main purpose of the sponsored project is. If it happens, that a few potential donors manifest interest in providing assistance to the same country, there usually crop up difficulties in the coordination of all endeavors. Sometimes several access lines for one country are designed with no regard to the fact that one line of an n-fold bit rate does not cost n-times as much.
Financial resources within foreign aid allow for the purchase of equipment, lease of the line and training of personnel. This is surely a lot. However, the idea of such aid is that after putting the network into operation and creating demand, it will become self-sufficient. In fact, one should bear in mind a potential threat. Both the authorities and the users are likely to take it for granted that the network itself and its services are free. If there simultaneously appears a commercial network, it is usually too expensive for the academic and research community, whereas it is prerequisite to make both the authorities and the users aware of the simple fact that networks cost money and that nothing in this world is free of charge.
There exists a similar threat to networks built from domestic money (for instance sponsored by the state budget). There is a tendency for network services to be rendered to the academic and research community free of charge. During the initial period this practice is fully justified. As long as the prospective users are not aware of their needs in the field of network services, such needs should be encouraged. Decision-makers within research and scientific institutions where the benefits of network services are not articulated will spend money on anything but making the network available to the staff.
Gradually, making use of a computer network is no longer a novelty that could easily be dropped. A new stage of network usage is embarked on. The central system of financing turns into a handicap. I believe that alongside with the development of the network this system should be replaced by subsidizing the users, i.e. data-communication subscribers. Several arguments in favor of this procedure can be put forward:
* Disciplining the operator
The operator is the one to render services. He should do this according to the user's wish. In the system of central financing the operator is simultaneously the dispatcher of goods. In the case of networks the goods mean access to the network. The operator's resources are, for obvious reasons, limited. He can't satisfy all the wishes of the users, like for instance those relating to the bandwidth of the access line. Therefore he has to take decisions (according to the best of his knowledge) which need not necessarily be appreciated by the users.
* Disciplining the user
If the service provided to the academic and research community is free, the user has no motivation to assess his own connection needs in real terms. More connections are planned than are necessary, because "maybe they will prove useful".
* Counteracting monopolistic practices on the part of the operator
Introduction of a system where the subsidized user is in a position to select the operator, will counteract an unjustified increase of network operation cost. As new operators will appear on the market, the user will be able to choose the one that offers high quality services at minimum price.
* Avoiding waste of money
In the system of central financing, an institution connected to the network is not aware of the real cost of the service it is making use of. It is a common practice, and I know about this phenomenon from my own experience, that institutions of higher education connect to the network certain users for whom nobody pays. It need not immediately be a case of embezzlement. The institution may be quite positive that while connecting non-academic institutions (like e.g. schools) it acts for the common good. It is a sort of a "gift" for someone else's money. The procedure may become serious when there appears a possibility to cooperate with commercial companies.
The above reflections boils down to one conclusion: in the academic and research community the ultimate goal should be to finance the user and not the operator. In doing this, however, maximum caution should be taken. During the first stage of network development, when the needs are still not articulated, it is necessary to finance the operator.
Coordination
More than two years ago representatives of seven national networking organization started discussion on the coordination of the networking activity. It was decided to create networking association. In this way Central and Eastern European Networking Association - CEENET was created. At present 19 countries belongs to the organization:
Country Organization Country representative E-mail Albania INIMA Gudar Bequiraj inima (at) santel.it Austria ACOnet Peter Rastl rastl (at) cc.univie.ac.at Belarus UNIBEL Andrey Ivanov ivanov (at) ok.minsk.by Bulgaria UNICOM Kiril Boyanov boyanov (at) bgcict.bitnet Croatia CARNet Predrag Pale predrag.pale (at) carnet.hr Czech Republic CESNet Jan Gruntorad tkgj (at) aci.cvut.cz Estonia EENet Enok Sein enok (at) eenet.ee Georgia ICM Levan Kiknadze kiknadze (at) compmath.acnet.ge Hungary HUNGARNet Laszlo Csaba h26csa (at) ella.hu Latvia LATNet Janis Kikuts kikuts (at) mii.lu.lv Lithuania LITNet Laimutis Telksnys telksnys (at) mii.lt Macedonia MARNet Oliver Popov oliver (at) soros.mk Moldova NIC Valerian Levinski levinsky (at) mdearu.cri.md Poland NASK Tomasz Hofmokl hofmokl (at)nask.pl Romania RNC Adrian Toia atoia (at) roearn.ici.ro Russia FREENet Andrej Mendkovich asm (at) free.net Slovakia SANET Pavol Horvath horvath (at) cvt.stuba.st Slovenia ARNES Marco Bonac bonac (at) arnes.si Ukraine UARNET Alexander Saban saban (at) icmp.lviv.ua
The main objective of CEENet is to co-ordinate international aspects primarily of academic and research networking in the region of Central and Eastern Europe. In order to attain this objective, CEENet shall, inter alia:
- promote and encourage technical and organizational
co-operation between national networks;
- provide for the exchange of operational, directory and
technica information;
- protect and serve the interests of CEENet and its
members with respect to other organizations;
- when appropriate, set up and run common services and
technical facilities;
- establish working groups to perform technical
activities in line with objectives of CEENet;
- support and organize conferences;
- publish and distribute documents, brochures,
periodicals, etc.;
- promote and encourage the development and establishment
of appropriate national services;
- prepare and submit proposals to international and
European organizations to promote network developments
for CEENet and its members;
- any other activity that supports the goals of CEENet.
Members of the CEENet are national networking organizations focusing on academic and research networking of Central and Eastern Europe. Each country is represented by only one organization with official authorization.
The description of the networking situation presented country by country in this document is based on the reports from member states presented during the March General Assembly meeting in Bled, Slovenia. It should be regarded as a preliminary because there was no time to consult the final text with representatives of the countries. Therefore only Author of the report bears the responsibility of all errors and omissions.
