CCFIT Telecommunications Advisory Board 2010-11 Recommendations May 2011

1. CCFIT Telecommunications Advisory Board2010-11 RecommendationsMay 2011

2. Recap of TAB Work • Funding model for telecom services • FTE funding model • Blue Ribbon Committee on IT Excellence • Horizontal wiring upgrades

3. Challenges and Opportunities • Challenges • Deferred maintenance of horizontal wiring • Sustainable funding model • Access and incentives • Opportunities • Ubiquitous extension of high speed services in support of research, instruction and administrative functions • Reduce administrative overhead • Cost effectively improve the ability of faculty, staff and students to access network services for their respective needs

4. Blue Ribbon Committee • Aspirations • Ubiquitous wired and wireless network services • Change funding model • Improved accessibility to services • Realizing the aspirations • Funding - Move to central funding or FTE model • Reduced fees for installation/activation of services • Reduced administrative overhead • Secure funding commitments for horizontal wiring improvements

5. Funding Model • Current model • All services are recharge and subscription-based • Issues • Current model encourages retention of unused services, disconnect of desired services • Wireless/cellular services and support are increasing • Charging based upon wall jacks is no longer a sustainable approach • One-time costs for installation/activation too high • Current model does not address some critical needs • Network security services, emergency services • Administrative overhead

6. Funding Model - Options • Central funding model • Recommended by Blue Ribbon Committee on IT Excellence • “Common good” model • Data, wireless and network security services funded centrally • Advantages • Not technology dependent • Improved accessibility to services, management of services • Lowered overhead • Disadvantages • Prioritization of expenditures • Funding limitations create the potential for on-going deferred maintenance

7. Funding Model - Options • FTE-based funding model • “Common good” model where data and wireless are funded with FTE rate • Option to fund network security and emergency services • Voice remains a fee-for-service at reduced rate • Advantages • Not technology dependent – sustainable • Improved accessibility to services • Several FTE rates/tiers – as cost neutral as possible • Disadvantages • Still a recharge model – administrative overhead • Complexity in assigning recharge accounts

8. FTE Funding Model • FTE metric is population-based, not technology-based • As technology changes, metric does not need to change • Based on population accessing or benefiting from the infrastructure • Not based on number of NAMs or other technology metric • Rate for the metric changes with technology • Technology is changing • Campus Wi-Fi • Cellular coverage • Network security • IP transport for services (voice, video, physical security, metering, etc.) • Wall jacks no longer a feasible rate metric • Increasing demand for high speed wired data services and mobility

9. FTE Funding Model • Common good services are defined as infrastructure and services that benefit all campus constituents and serve the mission of the campus • Campus data network and connection(s) to Internet, regional networks, research networks • Wireless network services • Fiber optic infrastructure • Network security • Campus emergency services • Cable plant management and documentation • Service desks • Vendor and contract management • Installation services

10. FTE Funding Model • Commodity services – remain subscription-based • Voice services • Voicemail • Cable Television • Radio (non-emergency service) • Sundry debtors, units not funded by the university • Options/agility to outsource • Technology advances and realignment of costs allow voice pricing to be reduced

11. FTE Funding Model • FTE based model – 3 “Tiers” of users • Different rates for each tier • Needs to be simple in order to manage • Tier 1 - Communications Users • Regular use of network services • Tier 2 – Non-Communications Users • Minimal use of network services, but still benefit • Examples – custodians, food service workers, groundskeepers • Tier 3 – Full-cost Users • Ineligible for general fund offsets • Examples – auxiliaries, USDA

12. FTE Funding Model • Comparison with peer institutions • Common Good services (average charge per FTE) • UCLA - $40.75 / month • UCB - $40 / month • UCD - $38 / month • Voice service (basic) • UCLA - $17.60 / month • UCB - $23.23 / month (outsourced) • UCD - $16.50 / month

13. Funding Model • Recommendations • TAB recommends further examination of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s proposal for centralized funding of IT services • Reduction of administrative overhead • Improved access to services • Efficiencies gained through more centralized management • Funding sources • Governance structure • Compare with the proposed FTE based funding model and develop a recommendation as to which approach would best serve campus needs and aspirations.

14. Horizontal Wiring • Deferred maintenance of horizontal wiring • Older buildings have a mixture of cable types • Significant amount of CAT-3 cabling supporting a maximum of 10 Mbps speeds • Units and research programs in older buildings disadvantaged with lower speed data connections • Impacts high speed research needs, access to remote sites and servers, data storage, desktop management, etc. • Reduces reliability of converged (real time) services

15. Horizontal Wiring Proposal • IET surveyed the cable infrastructure and developed cost estimates for upgrades • Input from Academic units – Building prioritization • Proposal • $28.8M upgrade, 345 buildings over 5 years • Make systematic upgrades vs. opportunistic • Phase 1 – Top 28 research buildings (approx 40% of cost) • Deans’ endorsement • Top 2 buildings funded (deferred maintenance budget) • Recommendation – CCFIT endorse efforts to establish on-going financial commitments