1. Slide 1 ASPIRE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP Brussels Thursday 13 September 2012 www.terena.org/aspire Stefan Winter R&D Engineer stefan.winter@restena.lu THE ADOPTION OF MOBILE SERVICES - study report

2. Slide 2 STUDY OVERVIEW ›Study looks 5 – 10 years ahead on the topic of mobility ›Mobility Infrastructures ›Mobile Services ›Enabling factors ›The sub-topics all provide ›Overview of current state ›Likely developments in the area ›Implications on NRENs / R&E ›Available at http://www.terena.org/aspirehttp://www.terena.org/aspire Slide 2

3. Slide 3 INFRASTRUCTURES: CAMPUS ›Wireless connectivity on campus: status quo ›Of paramount importance ›Often delivered with WiFi ›eduroam has very large footprint, other roaming consortia negligible ›Likely developments ›Expectations for “always connected” on the rise ›Location loses importance, e.g. ›“Home” or “Other site” ? ›Campus IP address ? ›Suggestions ›Deploy eduroam at all WiFi locations ›No separate network name for home vs. roaming Slide 3

4. Slide 4 INFRASTRUCTURES: OFF-CAMPUS ›Technologies, status quo ›3G: predominant; good availability but significant drawbacks in speed, latency and pricing when abroad ›Digital divide: countries with lower (GPRS, EDGE) and higher (LTE) properties exist ›Offerings for academic sector exist, but fragmented ›Likely developments ›LTE on the rise ›Offers better opportunities for integration with R&E networks than 3G – GEANT MCFA underway ›Users will likely want to switch between campus and off-campus connectivity without noticing ›eduroam might provide service for off-campus, not a natural winner though Slide 4

5. Slide 5 INFRASTRUCTURES: DEDICATED SPECTRUM ›3G and LTE markets are difficult ›dominated by commercial providers ›Operators own all available spectrum ›Any business agreement makes NREN 2 nd tier provider behind the commercial one; dependent on their pricing ›To position NRENs as true, independent operator: ›Dedicated spectrum (and supporting handsets) ›Own infrastructure ›university buildings are important asset ›NRENs have IP backbone ›Own service – strictly limited to members of R&E ›Enables roaming between NRENs without dictation of prices from commercial operators Slide 5

6. Slide 6 SERVICES: STATUS QUO ›Educational resources not (necessarily) in hands of educational institution ›Content is available from various places iTunes U, YouTube EDU, Khan Academy… ›Commodity services as well Gmail, Google Calendar, … ›Mobile offerings extension of web services (browser-centric) ›Access to content is not usually agnostic of (network) location or presented identity ›VPNs, access via specific IP address ranges, … ›No federated login (e.g. use Gmail identity for resource access) Slide 6

7. Slide 7 SERVICES: LIKELY DEVELOPMENTS ›Specialised applications/front-ends for mobile devices ›size-constrained ›bandwidth-constrained ›Requirement for seamless session continuation ›Inclusion of environmental parameters into services ›Location-awareness ›Sensor availability ›Commercial digital identities will gain importance (and marginalise academic ones?) ›NRENs and constituency need to cooperate with the commercial world – no ivory tower! Slide 7

8. Slide 8 ENABLING MOBILITY ›Infrastructure-wise, ivory tower attitude is hard- wired into many NRENs ›No/limited carrying of commercial traffic ›No/limited sharing of resources (WiFi Access Points, …) ›Much possible synergy is being wasted that way ›Service-wise, relation between commercial and academic services is often seen more like “competition” than “symbiotic” ›Commercial providers could be incentivised to provide value-added services to academic community ›Academic services could use third-party add-ons Slide 8

9. Slide 9 ENABLING MOBILITY: RECOMMENDATIONS ›Make infrastructure and services easy to use ›Irrespective of physical location ›Irrespective of connectivity properties ›Consider “virtual” mobility ›E.g. provide quick and easy access to video- conferencing ›Stop piecemeal approach; move towards holistic offering across entire sector ›Every institution should offer all mobility services ›Not only on technical level (e.g. remove administrative hurdles when students move between universities) Slide 9

10. Slide 10 SUMMARY ›Mobility support exists, many concepts are being used, trialed, or at least sketched ›Consistent rollout to every stakeholder is important – but not yet reality ›Community needs to work together to provide a consistent pan-European service offering ›Regarding technologies (Europe-wide off-campus IP connectivity for predictable and affordable prices) ›Regarding services (Make own services available to all authorised users across Europe; allow own users to make use of third-party services) ›Regarding regulation and administration (remove hurdles, reconsider NRENs’ strict statutes – keeping in mind the “closed network” status) Slide 10

11. Slide 11 Questions? Answers! (*) (*) possibly