1

Funding model for telecom services
 FTE funding model
 Blue Ribbon Committee on IT Excellence

Horizontal wiring upgrades
2

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
3

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
4

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
5

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
6

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
7

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
8

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
9

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

10

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
11

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
12

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.
13

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
14
 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 ongoing financial commitments
15