Network Planning Task Force

1. Network Planning Task Force “Consensus Building: Preliminary Rate Setting”

2. Mary Alice Annecharico / Rod MacNeil, SOM Mark Aseltine* / Mike Lazenka, ISC Robin Beck, ISC Doug Berger / Manuel Pena, Housing & Conference Services Chris Bradie / *Dave Carroll, Business Services Chris Field, GPSA (student) Cathy DiBonaventura, School of Design* Geoff Filinuk, ISC Bonnie Gibson, Office of Provost Roy Heinz / John Keane, Library Robert Helfman, Budget Mgmt. Analysis John Irwin, GSE Marilyn Jost, ISC Carol Katzman, Vet School Deke Kassabian / Melissa Muth, ISC James Kaylor / CCEB* Dan Margolis, SEAS* (student) Chris Massicotte, Audit & Compliance Kayann McDonnell, Law Donna Milici, Nursing Dave Millar, ISC Michael Palladino, ISC (Chair) Dominic A. Pasqualino / Audit & Compliance* David Seidell, Wharton* Dan Shapiro, Dental Mary Spada, VPUL Marilyn Spicer, College Houses* Steve Stines / Jeff Linso, Div. of Finance Ira Winston / Helen Anderson, SEAS, SAS, School of Design Active Task Force Membershttp://www.upenn.edu/computing/group/nptf/ *New FY ‘04

3. Summer 9/15 9/29 10/8 11/3 11/17 12/1 12/15 Focus group sessions Setting the stage Security discussions (Part I) Security discussions (Part II) Operational briefing/baseline activities Strategic discussions Consensus building/preliminary rate setting State of the Union NPTF FY 2004 Meetings

4. Last NPTF Meeting • Date • 12/15 - State of the Union • Time • 1:30 - 3:00 PM • Place • Logan Hall, Terrace Room • Attendees • NPTF • IT Roundtable • SUG

5. Today’s Agenda • Discuss revised assumptions • Share cost-cutting measures • Show N&T 6-year cash flow • Show draft FY ‘05 rates • Discussions and voting on new initiatives • Preliminary rate setting

6. Budget Assumptions • Security concerns are a top priority as various viruses, worms, etc. have reduced Penn’s productivity levels. These concerns have constituted a significant portion of the Fall NPTF discussions. • 5 year phase-out of allocated monies ($2.317M) to occur from FY2003-07. • Telecommunications surplus, operating efficiencies and increased costs to offset allocated cost phase out. • Aggregate PennNet, Telecommunications and Video service rate increases projected at 1-2% maximum yearly, determined in conjunction with NPTF.

7. Budget Assumptions (Continued) • Excellent bandwidth management techniques combined with a good Internet strategy have eased the pressure on developing tiered network connectivity options. However, this will continue to be explored and evaluated as the need/opportunity arises. • Separate SLAs for College Houses and Greeknet for maintenance and bandwidth. • FY2005-09 budget assumes Next Generation PennNet project averages $590k/year, down from original $837k/year. Funding source is Telecommunications surplus.

8. Budget Assumptions (Continued) • No rate increases for existing Telecommunications and Video services in ’05, except PVN. www.net.isc.upenn.edu/rates • For FY2005 College House students will continue to be billed indirectly as part of housing fees for baseline PennNet and Penn Video Network services. • Building entrance and router equipment are on a four-year replacement cycle. • Closet electronics and network servers are on a three-year replacement cycle. • N&T will run a fiscally self-sufficient GigaPoP (MAGPI) and break even in FY ’04 and beyond. Revenue and expense could approach $1M for FY’04.

9. Budget Assumptions (Continued) • The CSF will subsidize approximately 850 wired, public lab connections that have computers attached in FY2004. TBD for FY2005. • The growth rate in IP addresses from the schools/centers is projected to increase by 1200 per year from FY2004-09. • ISC managed wallplates projected growth at 1200 new per year.

10. Subsidized IP Addresses

11. Budget Assumptions (Continued) • To retain and recruit appropriate N&T IT staff, 3% compensation has been budgeted to include annual performance increases, equity increases, bonuses, promotions and reclassifications from FY2005 - 09. • In FY2004 a 54.2% overhead rate was projected to cover costs of benefits, rent, training, computers, telephones, etc. Our FY’05 overhead rate is 53% for FY2005. • The NOC will not be physically staffed (7x24x365) through FY2009. It will continue to operate from 6 AM – 11 PM, M-F with the rest of the week covered by technical staff on beepers. • N&T total expense budget increases from $22M in FY ’02 to only $23.2M in FY ’09.

12. N&T Overhead Cost Breakdown FY2005

13. FY’05 N&T Cost-Cutting Measures • Lowering yearly NGP budget in FY ‘05-09 to $590k, down from $837k/year. • Dropping 2 full-time contractors in FY ‘05. • Dropping 4 part-time contractors in FY ‘05. • Lowering voice systems expenses by $100k in FY ‘05. • Outsourcing some job functions. • Insourcing some job functions.

14. Projected N&T 6-Year Cash Flow

15. Telecommunications Projected Revenue (FY2005)

16. FY2004 Port Rental Expense Breakdown (10baseT)

17. FY2005 Port Rental Expense Breakdown (10baseT)

18. FY2004 Connection Maintenance Expense Breakdown (10baseT)

19. FY2005 Connection Maintenance Expense Breakdown (10baseT)

20. FY2004 Projected CSF Expenses(Fall, 2002 data)

21. FY2005 Projected CSF Baseline Expenses (Fall, 2003 data)

22. Security Strategy for FY ‘05 • Firewalls, VPNs, and intrusion-detection are tactical solutions, of all which have an important role to play in Penn Information Security. • The single most effective way to deploy resources against our information security problems is in support of mastering host security. • In support of that strategy, we plan the following activities: • Run opt-in SUS server, seeking $28k to support students. • Do not seek funds ($150k - $200k) for port traces and disconnects associated with patch management policy.

23. Security Strategy (Continued) • Provide proactive, high quality LSP and end-user security tools and documentation supported by an ongoing campus-wide training and awareness program: • Web-based self-scanning/reporting • End user-friendly security technical information for all supported operating systems. • 2-3 half-day or full-day LSP training sessions annually • Ongoing end user awareness campaign supported by media ads, articles, management communications, incentives and other campus-wide communications.

24. Technology Support Services • Challenge: Balancing increasing demand for services with the need to provide cost effective services. Funding additional staffing to maintain Provider Support Services at the desired levels given increasing demand. • No positions added since 1997 • Drivers • Anti-Virus and Security • New Services (PennKey, Wireless, etc.) • Increasing Demand

25. Technology Support Services • Drivers

26. Technology Support Services • Drivers

27. Technology Support Services • Issue: In order to provide acceptable response and follow up on the Provider Desk we propose increased staffing for that service (currently one staff member per shift). • We recognize the challenge to hold costs down and we have already shifted resources from primary to second-tier support services to the extent possible. • Still, in order to provide the desired level of service we need to identify an ongoing funding source for incremental staffing.

28. Technology Support Services 2nd-Tier Support for Patch Management includes: • Communication and Documentation to/for IT Staff. • ProDesk support for LSPs with questions/problems. • ProCD for critical security updates.

29. FY2005 Projected CSF Baseline + Security Expenses (Fall, 2003 data)

30. Next Steps • NPTF makes rate recommendations. • Finalize N&T FY ‘04 - FY ‘09 budgets. • Rate recommendations presented to Provost. • Final FY ‘05 rates established. • Rates published in Almanac.