Seserv athens-workshop-brief-report


Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Seserv athens-workshop-brief-report

  1. 1.     SESERV   Socio-­‐Economic  Services  for  European  Research  Projects   h8p://     European  Seventh  Framework  CSA  FP7-­‐2010-­‐ICT-­‐258138  The interplay of economics and technologyfor the Future Internet SESERV workshopBrief report and next stepsGeorge  Stamoulis  and  Costas  Kalogiros  (AUEB)  Presented  by  Didier  Bourse  (ALBLF)  EC  D1  ConcertaAon  MeeAng  14.02.12  -­‐  Brussels  © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 1
  2. 2. Workshop objectives •  Present economic issues related to •  Adoption of technologies Directly related to •  New pricing schemes Horizon 2020 FP •  Regulation of FI: interconnection, net neutrality •  Elaborate on the application of the paradigm of “tussle-awareness” in the design of FI technologies •  Debate on topics related to the role of economics and regulation, the evolution of CDNs etc. •  Advance the awareness of SESERV on the related needs of the FI community, and give/get feedback© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 2
  3. 3. Participation Number of participants: 50 •  Industry/Other: •  National Technical •  Projects: University of Athens •  CLOUD4SOA •  British Telecom •  Kapodistrian University •  ECONET •  Deutsche Telekom of Athens •  ENSEMBLE •  Center for •  University of Pireaus Democracy and •  ETICS •  Athens University of Technology •  EURO-NF Economics and •  IT Innovation •  OneFIT Business •  COMET •  φSAT •  University of Zurich •  PURSUIT •  Academia: •  Athens Information •  SAIL •  University of Exeter Technology •  SESERV •  University of •  Aalto University •  ULOOP Wuerzburg •  UNIVERSELF •  Technical University Berlin •  University of Thessaly© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 3
  4. 4. Workshop’s structure (1/2) •  Invited keynote speeches •  Internet Market Failures, Dr. Bob BRISCOE (BT) •  The Evolution of Business Models in the Internet, Dr. Falk von BORNSTAEDT (DT) •  Internet Traffic Management in the UK and the US, Ms. Alissa COOPER (CDT) •  Two-sided perspectives on network neutrality, Prof. Robin MASON (UoExeter) •  Tussle analysis session •  Introduction to tussle analysis methodology, Prof. C. COURCOUBETIS (AUEB) •  Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS and TCP, Dr. C. KALOGIROS (AUEB) •  Tussle analysis for FP7 research project ETICS case studies, Dr. M. DRAMITINOS (AUEB)© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 4
  5. 5. Workshop’s structure (2/2)•  Breakout working sessions: focus groups •  To exchange views and advance SESERV awareness on FI technologies•  Discussion panel on the role of economics to the evolution of Internet •  Mr. M. BONIFACE (ITI), •  Dr. B. BRISCOE (BT), •  Ms. A. COOPER (CDT), •  Prof. R. MASON (UoExeter), •  Mr. N. LE SAUZE (ALBLF), •  Prof. G.D.STAMOULIS (AUEB), •  Prof. B. STILLER (UZH)© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 5
  6. 6. Key statements of Invited Speakers •  B.Briscoe: The “byte” is not the right charging metric – A flow should be charged on its contribution to congestion •  F.von Bornstaedt: “Sending Party Network Pays” is the only way to do E2E QoS - increases accountability and trust among providers – no problem with net neutrality •  A. Cooper: Competition among ISPs in the UK does not regulate the market: almost all ISPs employ traffic discrimination, so no consumer choice •  R.Mason: Net neutrality should be evaluated – more analysis based on models and less ideology is needed© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 6
  7. 7. Tussle Analysis Sessions Preliminary tussle Focus group 1 Introduction to tussle analysis for QoS-aware analysis methodology & Focus group 2 ISP interconnection DNS, TCP case-studies (ETICS project) Focus group 3•  Internet protocol •  Allowing ISPs to control •  Focus groups as an designers should take major properties of their interactive tussle into account the lessons service offerings (such analysis game where learned from tussles as range of destinations, stakeholder related to other popular prices, etc.) increases representatives can Internet protocols chances of adoption express how they•  Tussle analysis helps in and can even have perceive an Internet understanding: positive effects to other technology under •  how Internet stakeholders Internet functionalities investigation may interact by exploiting (e.g. routing) •  Key instrument for Future Internet technologies •  SLA monitoring SESERV in bridging the to advance their socio- technologies can have gap between those who economic interests an impact on ISPs’ build and use/study the •  and their implications to incentives for correctly Internet other stakeholders & functionalities dimensioning their backup paths © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 7
  8. 8. Preliminary findings of tussle analysis focus groups User-centricity and transparency with an emphasis on wireless networksFocus group 1 •  Users may need trust-enabling technologies and economic incentives for relaying traffic •  ISPs may be concerned about losing control of their networks but they could be willing to release that control, if it would increase user satisfaction Content and service delivery architectures, with an emphasis on Information-centric technologiesFocus group 2 • ISPs lower their transit costs and gain a larger share of the content delivery market with deploying ICN architectures and their own CDNs • Traditional stakeholders whose interests are offended will respond, e.g. transit ISPs will evolve and enter the content delivery market (interconnect “islands of information”) • Generally, a co-existence of traditional and ISP-owned CDNs is envisioned Interconnection agreements and monitoring, with an emphasis on technologies promoting collaboration between ISPs for QoS-aware serviceFocus group 3 provision • Smaller ISPs are likely to retreat from the market, or collaborate with other small ISPs to increase their control during QoS path setup • End users will probably demand some kind of SLA monitoring tool that allows to make sure that the premium rates they have asked and payed for are provided © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 8
  9. 9. Work plan on FI Economic Priorities (1/3)•  Perform tussle analysis for several European research projects’ technologies •  ETICS, UNIVERSELF, ULOOP, C2POWER, SAIL, PURSUIT, OPTIMIS, CLOUD4SOA•  Identify generic FI functionalities, their stakeholders and major tussles (including their spillovers) Tussle 1 Tussle 4 Tussle 2 Tussle 5 Tussle 3 Functionality B Functionality A© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 9
  10. 10. Work plan on FI Economic Priorities (2/3)•  Produce a consolidated view of stakeholders and tussles, by considering multiple networking functionalities at the same time.•  Provide recommendations based on lessons learned •  e.g. functionalities with high “out degree” can be considered as high- priority ones for further research A cartography of tussles by showing A cartography of stakeholders possible spillovers between network Functionalities functionalities Mobility   Traffic   QoS   Naming   control   Functionality C Edge-­‐ISP   ✔   ✔   ✔   ✔     Functionality AStakeholders Transit-­‐ ✔   ✔   ✔   ISP   End-­‐User   ✔   ✔   ✔   ✔           ASP   ✔   ✔   Functionality B     Regulator   ✔   ✔   ✔   © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 10
  11. 11. Work plan on FI Economic Priorities (3/3) •  Perform a survey of technologies for each of the functionalities by studying a broader set of Challenge 1 research projects. •  Focus on the innovative aspects of a technology and its relationship to (Socio-)Economic priorities. Functionalities Mobility   Traffic   QoS   Naming   control   ETICS  ASQ     ✔   ✔   goods     ULOOP  mesh   ✔   ✔   ✔   Technologies network       SAIL  content   ✔   ✔   delivery   plaTorm   PURSUIT   ✔   ✔   ✔   content   delivery   plaTorm   * Illustrative table …  © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 11
  12. 12. More Information • • • • Questions?© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 12
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.