Towards Information Society – eEurope and Evolving Networks
Matti Juutilainen Jouni Ikonen
Matti.Juutilainen@lut.fi Jouni.Ikonen@lut.fi
Lappeenranta University of Technology
Laboratory of Communications Engineering
P.O. Box 20, FIN-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
Abstract: The huge popularity of Internet has changed
our everyday lives. We use Internet for communication,
work and leisure. This situation is new but the
development is driving us rapidly further towards a true
information society where everyone has equal chance of
using Internet wherever needed. All the information can
be accessed whenever needed independent of the current
location.
This publication describes Europe’s current effort
towards information society and evaluates evolving next
generation networks’ relation to this development. This
publication also considers local and global service
provisioning options and their suitability for different
information society services.
1 INTRODUCTION
Before Internet reached its huge popularity in the mid
90’s, people usually did not have any connections to
computer networks. This was not a problem as people were
not yet used to new services that later came to be an
important part of our everyday lives. Since then, the
development of network technology has dramatically
changed the situation. We use this connection (an Internet
connection in most cases) for working, searching
information, leisure and in many cases keeping in touch with
our friends. The connection is quickly becoming an everyday
necessity like electricity.
The development has changed our way of life. Despite all
its flaws, Internet has proven to become a part of our lives.
The importance will even grow in the future, as the society is
developing towards information society goals set by
governments all over the world. Information society means
that everyone has equal chance to use and benefit from
network connections that are widely available. European
Union has started an eEurope program in order to promote
the development. In Finland Council of State has introduced
a national broadband strategy (see [1]). The strategy aims to
provide all the citizens in Finland an equal chance to get a
broadband connection to home.
In this publication we describe the eEurope program, its
goals towards information society, and evolving networks
relation to the goals. We concentrate on open access
WICT-5056-1509 © SoftCOM 2005
Jari Porras
Jari.Porras@lut.fi
networks, as they will most likely provide new opportunities
in the future.
End users need the Internet connection usually for
reaching some services in the network. Nowadays the
services are mostly located in Internet but in the future, the
services may move closer to their users. In any case, the goal
is that end users do not need to worry about the technology
behind the services. The users need an easy and affordable
way to reach and use the desired services. This publication
deals also with global and local service provisioning and
describes the pros and cons of both approaches.
2 EUROPEAN UNION’S eEUROPE PROGRAM
In 1999 European Union started an ambitious program,
eEurope, which aims to ensure that everyone in European
Union has access to new information and communication
technologies. The goal for European Union is to become the
most competitive knowledge-based society in the world by
2010. [2]
The eEurope program aims to improve people’s quality of
life, but the political interests can also be justified by the fact
that ICT development also greatly influences on the
European economy. According to the European Information
Technology Observatory [3], Europe’s portion is 32,1% (596
billion euros) of worldwide ICT market in 2005 and growth
rate from previous year in Europe is 4,1%. This comes from
the 4,5% growth in IT sector and 3,7% growth in
telecommunications.
eEurope is divided into multiple subprograms: eLearning,
eHealth, eGovernment, eContent and eBusiness. eLearning
coordinates national efforts to modernize education and
vocational training systems. eHealth, aims to improve the
quality and accessibility of health services (such as e-
accessibility for the disabled, bringing health services to
home etc.) eGovernment’s aim is to provide easy access to
public services (like job search, tax services, personal
documentation etc.) eContent tries to ensure that content and
information is available in people’s own language. eBusiness
restructures business processes to make the best use of new
digital technologies. [2]
In short, eEurope’s goal is to start new commercial
growth, bring new work to people and improve citizens’
overall quality of life. eEurope tries to achieve these goals by
spreading Internet connections to everyone using existing and
emerging medias (computer, mobile phone, television etc.)
Locality is not emphasized, but it is stated that everyone
should have the right to use the services with one’s own
language. From eEurope’s goals we get the requirements for
network technologies and what we should concentrate on.
3 EVOLVING NETWORKS AND eEUROPE
PROGRAM
Since the introduction of Internet, the way of providing the
connection to end users has been evolving. Firstly, Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) provided their customers with
connections (modems, ADSL etc.) Couple of years ago
technology enthusiasts began to build their own (wireless)
hot spot networks – community networks – open for
everyone. The newest trend in networking is public open
access, allowing connecting multiple ISPs in the same access
network and at the same time keeping the access network
open for everyone. See [4] for more details on the
development process and the differences of these different
approaches.
Let us compare these different networking approaches and
see how they meet the demands of eEurope program.
3.1 eEurope and Closed Access Networks
Traditional ISP-driven networks are closed access
networks. Closed access here means that the access network
is open only for ISP’s customers i.e. the access network only
connects the customers to ISP’s access controllers. There is
no direct communication between the end users in the access
network.
The main problem in these closed networks is their
inflexibility. ISPs allow only their own customers to connect
to their networks and prevent other ISPs’ equal competition
in the area. For example, in Finland the government has
published a law [5] that orders the ISPs to rent their access
network to other ISPs in a reasonable price. The Finnish
Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA) supervises
the communications markets in order to ensure healthy
competition and compliance by ISPs. However, in practice
the connection fees charged from other ISPs seem to be in
many cases remarkably higher than the real costs. This makes
equal competition impossible.
For example, in 16th of September 2004 Finland’s
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal made by
one of the telecom operators in Finland. The appeal
concerned FICORA’s decision of April 2001 on the
operator’s mobile network prices i.e. interconnection fees. In
its decision, the court maintained that operator’s fees were
unreasonably high and the company was ordered to reduce
the fees. [6] However there are disputes in courts about what
should the correct rate be? Calculating the real costs for
access network building and maintenance may be difficult for
the ISPs, and that should be taken into account.
WICT-5056-1509 © SoftCOM 2005
In Finland, European Union is financially helping the
building of ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line)
connections to sparsely populated areas. This promotes
getting the connections to everyone but at the same time it
complicates the competition between ISPs. As one of the
ISPs gets to build access network (with public financial
support) to a certain area, no other ISPs can build their own
networks to the same area with a comparable price. The ISP
having the access network has to allow other ISPs to use the
network, but the prices for that are anything but reasonable.
In conclusion, one of the ISPs has got a cheap access network
and a monopolistic position in the area. Additionally the ISP
can make revenue from renting the access network to the
other ISPs. This kind of monopolistic situation is beneficial
only for the one ISP. Other ISPs cannot compete and the end
users have no alternatives. The ISP can therefore specify the
connection fees in the area almost freely.
There is also another problem with the monopoly.
Whenever an ISP reaches this kind of situation, it wants to
protect itself from any kind of change. End users and
companies in the area get to suffer from high prices, poor
service and slow adoption of new services. This happens just
because the ISP in monopolistic position tries to prevent the
change by any means. The means include high
interconnection fees and longer times of delivery for the
competitors as well as delayed actions and concealing the
facts in ongoing disputes. This kind of behavior endangers
reaching the eEurope goals by year 2010.
As European Union’s eEurope program’s goal is to
provide everyone an equal chance to get a broadband Internet
connection, these traditional networks meet the goals well.
However, one should not forget the main problem: the
unhealthy competition, which results in high connection costs
and poor service level for end users. ADSL is nowadays the
main broadband technology for providing connections for
end users. The price for ADSL connection for end user varies
greatly between the European countries starting from around
15 €/month to several hundreds of euros per month for the
fastest connections.
3.2 eEurope and Open Access Networks
As the name implies, open access networks aim to allow
everyone to use the same shared access network. This relates
to every participant of the network, including ISPs, service
providers, and end users. Shared access network allows better
competition and therefore is likely to bring end users’
connection costs down.
The idea behind open access networks could be compared
to an airport. Different airlines share the same airport as it is
not feasible to build own airport for every airline company. It
is also easy for the passengers, as they can use one airport to
get services from any of the airlines or any of the supporting
service providers like airport restaurants and shops. Similarly,
access networks can be shared by multiple ISPs to gain
remarkable cost savings and better service level for end users.
There are different kinds of open access networks:
community networks, regional networks, commercial open
access networks and public centrally managed multi-ISP
networks.
Community Networks
Community networks are originally an effort to free
people from the limitations of ISP-driven networks. End
users build their own access network themselves usually by
putting wireless WLAN access points to their homes and
antennas to the roofs. The hot spots are then inter-connected
by wireless or wired links and the access network is built up.
The network coverage area is formed according to people’s
homes and some other access point installation locations.
One basic rule in community networks is that any
communication inside the access network must be free for
everyone. This benefits all of the users, as anyone can
provide other network users with any services (gaming, file
transfer etc.) Some of the users may share their own Internet
connection to the access network, but all ISPs do not allow
this. Having an Internet connection from a community
network is usually uncertain.
Community networks are an effective option for
technology enthusiasts, but in practice the suitability for
broader use is limited. Normal end users need a reliable
network connection and working support services. If an ISP
sells a connection to end user, the ISP is responsible for the
reliability of the connection. In community network approach
the ISP cannot guarantee the functionality of the access
network.
The commercial use of community network is difficult and
therefore the usability for providing everyone a broadband
Internet connection as stated in eEurope program is limited.
The uncertainty of even having an Internet connection from a
community network is great. And if there is a connection, the
specifications depend more on the access network users than
the ISP.
Regional Networks
Especially people in rural areas are having difficulties in
getting any kind of broadband connections, as ISPs do not
want to build access networks if the profitability is uncertain.
People have started to build their own regional open access
networks (see Finnish Regional Network Association [7] for
examples of these networks), mostly by using optical fiber.
People invest their own money to get the fiber to the home,
but after the network is in place, no-one can charge rent for
using the network.
When the open access network is in place the people allow
ISPs and other service providers to provide their services to
the access network. ISPs will be interested in providing their
services to a ready access network, as they do not have to
WICT-5056-1509 © SoftCOM 2005
invest on the network building. In addition to Internet
connections, the services may also include IPTV, IP-
telephony, Video on Demand, etc.
The access network needs an administrator in order to
keep the network operational. The network owners’ may
found a new non-profit organization or buy the service from
some company or even from an ISP. However, it is important
that the administrator is operator neutral i.e. every service
provider has similar rights to offer services to the access
network. The main point here is that local people still own
the local network infrastructure and no-one can collect any
fare for access network usage.
The open access and the neutral administrator are
important, as they prevent the monopolistic situation
described earlier and ensures healthy competition in service
provisioning. For end users, it is now easier to choose and
chance the ISP or other service providers whenever needed.
This will keep the competition high and the prices low.
Regional networks are a bit problematic when looking
from eEurope’s viewpoint. The main problem is the high cost
of building the access network, as the private people have the
pay it directly by themselves. All of the people may not
afford to get the connection to their home. On the other hand,
building access networks to rural areas is always expensive
regardless of the network builder. Finally the end users will
pay the expenses anyway.
Regional networks may also be problematic in cities as it
requires a great effort and lots of co-operation between
numerous parties to build an access network covering larger
areas. Despite all of the problems, regional networks offer
really interesting opportunities for the future.
Commercial Open Access Networks
Another option is commercial open access. The basic
principle is same as in regional networks: some authority
builds a regional network and then allows any service
provider to offer services to the access network. The
difference is that in commercial open access, the network
builder (and owner) is a commercial authority (like an energy
company). The company sells connections to the network for
people living in the area. After purchasing a connection to the
home, the access network usage does not cost anything. Of
course, the services in the access network may not all be free.
Examples of commercial open access networks can be
found for example in Sweden where MälarEnergi has built a
large regional network - Stadsnät (see [8]). There are over 60
different services like Voice over IP, IPTV and Video on
Demand that can be transmitted in good quality in the fiber-
based access network.
Like regional networks, commercial open access networks
also provide great opportunities for the future. It is beneficial
for the end users to be able to choose freely from a wide
variety of service providers and not to be tied to any of them.
Public Open Access
Public open access differs from the previous network
models especially in the sense of the access network
management. There are currently two different concepts for
open multi-ISP networks in the world: StockholmOpen.net
and WLPR.NET. Let us compare their pros and cons for
reaching eEurope’s goals.
StockholmOpen.net (see [9]) is “a common access system
with a minimum number of shared services”. The main goal
is to provide a model for building an access network that
offers connectivity and provides a choice of ISPs. “Minimum
number of shared services” means that the access network
framework does provide only the core services required for
the network operation i.e. user registration and DHCP
services.
StockholmOpen.net concentrates on providing shared
access network for all the connected ISPs. The access
network itself is open meaning that everyone can connect to
it. However, there are no local services but login pages, so
network users need a contract to one of the connected ISPs to
get Internet connection or any services.
Technically, each ISP independently provides its users
with IP addresses in the access network. This divides the
users to different address spaces and prevents direct
communications between them in the access network.
StockholmOpen.net’s “spin-offs” like SparkNet in Turku,
Finland (see [10]) indicate the easy implementation process
and the need for this kind of solution. SparkNet is not a copy
of StockholmOpen.net but uses the software provided by
StockholmOpen.net. SparkNet has also developed its services
towards community networks by opening an OpenSpark
community (see [11]). To join the community a user needs an
access point and a connection to Internet. After meeting these
requirements also other access points in the network are in
free use. At this sense the network is not truly open, as both
Internet access and access point are required.
In general, the principle of StockholmOpen.net answers to
eEurope’s request and allows everyone living in the network
an equal chance for buying a reasonable priced Internet
connection from any of the connected ISPs.
Similarly to StockholmOpen.net, WLPR.NET (see [12])
provides a shared access network that can be used to connect
multiple ISPs or service providers to one access network. The
main difference to StockholmOpen.net is that WLPR.NET
also allows locality: users can freely communicate directly
and provide any services inside the access network.
Additionally, local service providers, such as restaurants, can
provide their services (menus etc.) directly to local users.
The local prospects in WLPR.NET are beneficial to end
users and especially for tourists. Local information (such as
maps, public transportation timetables and restaurant menus)
can be used in the access network without needing Internet
connection.
In order to get an Internet connection from WLPR.NET, a
user has to make a contract with one of the connected ISPs.
WICT-5056-1509 © SoftCOM 2005
In that way WLPR.NET does not differ from the viewpoint of
StockholmOpen.net and therefore WLPR.NET offers a
similar match to eEurope’s goals. At the same time the
locality in WLPR.NET gives new opportunities for all the
participants. However, this also complicates the
implementation process of the network.
Discussion
As open access networks allow using shared access
network to several ISPs and service providers, the network
building costs are remarkably lower than in traditional ISP-
driven networks. This is especially beneficial to network
users, as eventually they will pay all the expenses.
From eEurope’s viewpoint open access networks will
most likely have an advantage over closed ISP networks, as
they give new opportunities for every player (ISPs, service
providers etc.) and more equal opportunities for a broadband
network access every citizen. Open access can be provided in
different ways, and each option is suitable for different
environment.
4 LOCAL OR GLOBAL SERVICES?
As stated before, some of the network models (closed ISP
networks and StockholmOpen.net for example) do not allow
direct local interaction and local services. On the other hand,
there are also network solutions, like community networks,
regional networks and WLPR.NET that allow local services
and interaction in the access network. Let us discuss on the
different ways of providing services to end users.
Basically there are two options for providing services:
either locally or globally. Nowadays services are located in
Internet. This means that the services are global and can be
physically located anywhere in the world. If users want to
access these services they just need an Internet connection.
Local services are located physically near to their users.
The idea in local services is that the users do not need
Internet connection to get access to the services. They just
need a connection to reach the nearby services. The services
are publicly available to everyone – given that end users have
a connection to the local network where the services are
located. Local services can also be provided “virtually” in
some cases, meaning that the services are whitelisted to be
available to everyone. Local services can be global at the
same time if the services are also connected to Internet. [13]
However, the services can provide some extra functionality
(like positioning) to the local network.
An obvious need for locality comes with services that
need high bandwidth, for example Video on Demand. These
services require so much network capacity that it is not
feasible to provide the services far away.
Considering local and global services at the end user’s
viewpoint, having services locally available eliminates the
need of an Internet connection for using the services. Let us
take governmental services for example. Governmental
services are meant for everyone and all the people should
have equal means of using these services. But if the services
require an Internet access, they are no longer equally within
everyone’s reach. End users have to pay for the Internet
connection – regardless if they actually need the rest of the
Internet at all.
Another example is e-mail service. Why to purchase an
Internet connection that costs 15-30€ per month just for
reading your e-mail every now and then? You can get modem
connections cheaper, but why would you need to limit the
connection speed? Consider slow connection times,
downloading large attachments etc. E-mail is just one
example; there are numerous other similar cases.
The question is why not to provide these basic services,
like e-mail, IP telephony or IP television, separately –
regardless of the Internet connection itself? This is already
happening especially in commercial open access networks
and regional networks.
Another trend in modern service provisioning is Triple
play. Triple play means the combination of Voice, Data, and
Video Service, which are offered as a bundled service. And
of course, the total price for the bundle is less than the price
of the individual services. Characteristic to Triple play
services is that they are locally available in some broadband
access networks rather than provided globally in Internet.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Our society is developing towards information society,
which is supposed to bring an affordable and easy-to-use
Internet connection in the reach of everyone. The network
technologies are developing and there are several options
how to provide Internet connection to end users. A traditional
approach is that ISPs build access networks and provide the
Internet connections to end users. The newest trend is open
access networks, which mainly aim to lower the cost of
Internet connection to end users.
Currently, there are several models for open access
networks: community networks, regional/commercial open
access and public open access. Many open access networks in
the world take some of these approaches as the basis of the
system, but it is common to “mix” several of these different
options and adapt the network to meet the requirements.
It can be seen that in the near future open access networks
will gain popularity. Nowadays many ISPs are consciously
slowing down the development but eventually open access
networks reach the critical mass of users that will prevent the
ISPs from staying out of the open network business.
We believe that in addition to open access, also locality
will have a role in communications networks. As the size of
the content in tomorrow’s services will grow at high rate, it is
beneficial to keep the content near the end users. People also
like to belong to a certain entity like the neighborhood, city,
country etc. This strengthens the solidarity and regional
cohesion between people. As ISPs are nowadays customizing
WICT-5056-1509 © SoftCOM 2005
their services more and more to different user groups, in the
future the whole network and service structure could base on
the locality.
As many of modern open access solutions only
concentrate on open network access, some of the solutions
also enable open service access. As open network access
makes the Internet connection costs lower by allowing equal
competition of multiple ISPs in the same access network,
open service access emphasizes end users’ opportunities and
new service concepts.
At the moment, European Union’s eEurope program
concentrates on providing broadband Internet connections to
everyone, i.e. open network access. In the future, as the
network technologies develop and a broadband network
access becomes an everyday necessity, like electricity, also
open service access may get more important role.
Regardless of the technologies and solutions, the
development towards information society is in progress.
Public authorities will be in a key role in guiding the markets
towards a true open access, where everyone really has equal
opportunities for both network access and the services.
6 REFERENCES
[1] National (Finland) broadband strategy, web pages [link
verified 29.07.2005],
http://www.laajakaistainfo.fi/english/index.php
[2] Towards a knowledge-based Europe: The European Union and
the information society, European Commission, Manuscript
completed in October 2002, 19 pp., Catalogue number: NA-
40-01-989-EN-C
[3] EITO 2005, European Information Technology Observatory,
ISSN 0947-4862
[4] M. Juutilainen, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Comparison of
Different WLAN Network Models, Proc. 3rd IEEE
International Conference on Networking, Gosier, Guadeloupe,
French Caribbean, 2004, pp. 374-381.
[5] Finnish act on competition restrictions 480/1992 (in Finnish)
with amendments up to 30.4.2004/318.
[6] Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority, Press Release
on network bulk pricing (in Finnish) [link verified
29.07.2005],
http://www.ficora.fi/suomi/ajankoht/kho_teliasonera.htm
[7] Finnish Regional Network Association, web pages [link
verified 29.07.2005], http://www.seutuverkot.net/
[8] MälarEnergi Stadsnät, web pages (in Swedish) [link verified
29.07.2005], http://www.malarenergi.se/stadsnat/
[9] StockholmOpen.net, project web pages [link verified
29.07.2005], http://www.stockholmopen.net/
[10] SparkNet, web pages (in Finnish) [link verified 29.07.2005],
http://www.sparknet.fi/
[11] OpenSpark web pages [link verified 29.07.2005],
https://open.sparknet.fi/index.php?la=en
[12] Wireless Lappeenranta Network, project web pages [link
verified 29.07.2005], http://www.wlpr.net/
[13] J. Ikonen, and J. Porras, Information Society Services provided
by access networks, WSEAS transactions on circuits, Vol. 2,
Issue 1, January 2003, pp. 222-227.