MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
Personal Productivity
Initiative 4B: Access Infrastructure
HIGHLIGHTS





Almost all CSU students and faculty own an operational computer; both report difficulty in connecting
to the campus network from a remote location.
Funds were allocated for the Technology Infrastructure Initiative (TII). Work on improving intracampus network infrastructures with these funds will commence in FY 2001/2002.
The baseline network connection standards and the entitlement for each campus have been
determined; less than 1% of existing connections meet these standards.
Metrics and the means to measure intra and inter-campus network performance have been
developed and are reported for 2000/2001.
Data indicate that the bandwidth of the inter-campus network (4CNet) is keeping pace with growth in
demand. However, bandwidth requirements will increase rapidly as campus network connections are
improved through TII.
Description of Initiative
This is the keystone initiative upon which all else rests. The CSU has been establishing standards and
building out the voice, video and data network on and between campuses. The network increasingly
provides students, faculty and staff with high speed transmission capabilities to access information,
transact University business and communicate on campus, between campuses and globally. The growth
of the network has also enabled better communications between the community colleges, the University
of California and other educational entities.
Current Status
Inter-Campus Infrastructure
Between 1990 and 1996 the CSU inter-campus data network evolved from CSUNet, a service linking
CSU campuses to each other and to the Internet at 1.5 Megabits per second (T-1), to 4CNet, a backbone
network connecting 27 CSU sites at 45 Mbps (T-3) and 125 California Community College and 30 plus K12 sites at T-1 or lower speeds. Videoconferencing facilities were installed on each CSU campus during
this period and a portion of CSUNet dedicated to supporting videoconferencing. Voice services were
provided by a mix of campus operated and externally contracted telephone networks. This initiative will
triple 4CNet speed/bandwidth capability and will improve substantially the reliability and the quality of
network service.
Progress through summer 2001:
 All campus connections to the backbone have been upgraded to OC-3 capacity where such
service is commercially available.
 The 4CNet backbone has been upgraded to OC-12 capacity and enhanced network management
tools have been implemented.
 Approximately 95% of Community College Campuses have received video conferencing
connections and equipment.
 Last 4 CSU campuses have selected a PBX vendor, 2 of the 4 have purchased equipment and
the remaining 2 are finalizing plans to move forward.
Intra-Campus Infrastructure
To achieve the target level of network access, the campus inter- and intra-building infrastructures must be
engineered to assure end-to-end compatibility. The scope of this activity demands unprecedented
cooperation, collaboration and participative management by campuses at all levels. The build-out on each
Access Infrastructure-1
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
campus will be accomplished in two stages. In Stage 1, individual campuses are responsible for
construction of physical plant facilities and the installation of intra-building media (cabling). Stage 2, the
acquisition and installation of inter-building media and terminal resources (electronics), will be managed
centrally and involve the participation of a private-sector provider. Actual construction will begin in
2000/2001 for the first group of campuses, with additional cohorts commencing activities in 2001/2002
and 2002/2003. Planning activities are on track to begin implementation as scheduled and a funding
source for Stage 1 construction has been identified for the first two cohorts.
Progress through summer 2001:
 Preliminary Infrastructure Designs are being developed at all campuses. These have been
completed on 18 campuses, with completion at those remaining expected this coming spring.
 Working drawings are being prepared for the 8, first-year campuses, construction bidding has
started, one campus has received bids and bidding at the remaining 7 should be completed by
March.
 The Stage 2 Systems Integrator has been selected and final contract negotiations are underway.
 A set of common baseline campus network standards have been developed and adopted by all
23 campuses.
 When asked to rate the importance of a wide range of academic, administrative, and
infrastructure priorities in IT, CIO’s in the CSU gave almost identical rankings to comparison
institutions nationally. However, there was a slight tendency for CSU campuses to place a higher
priority on local area network issues such as wireless technologies and gibabit Ethernet.
Outcomes and Measurements
I.
To provide students, faculty and staff with network access, which allows high-speed
communications on and between campuses, other educational agencies and around the
world.
Measurement:
Reduction in service interruptions on the network.
Ability to contact someone at any time and from any place is the goal of any communication system.
Voice communication via telephone networks is close to 100% reliable and of very high quality, but it is
limited to real-time exchanges. The challenge to the CSU with respect to voice communications is to
preserve (and possibly enhance) current services while reducing their costs. The goal of the Integrated
Technology Strategy (ITS) is to provide a data communications network that is as reliable as the
telephone system, but capable of carrying many times more information in multiple forms (text, data,
images, audio) as required to meet the burgeoning academic and administrative demands of the
university.
Change Data:
Intra-Campus Networks
Commonly accepted industry standards for quantifying interruptions in data network service do not exist
at this time. In the absence of common standards, interruptions in network connectivity are often
measured in “downtime.” “Downtime” is a term used to identify periods of time (usually minutes) when
users cannot send or receive information via a data network because of a problem in the network.
Calculation of “downtime” is complex because a campus “network” typically consists of several local and
wide area networks employing different kinds of hardware and software and operated by different units,
all of which depend on local power and telephone utilities.
As used below, “downtime” is defined for the campus network as whole; i.e., if a network user is able to
send and receive information thanks to redundant capabilities, there is no “downtime,” even though a
major piece of networking equipment may have failed. “Planned downtime” refers to interruptions in
service scheduled to enable maintenance, upgrade or other activities related to the operation of the
Access Infrastructure-2
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
network. “Unplanned downtime” means unscheduled interruptions caused by a failure in some part of the
network.
A summary of “downtime” reported by twenty-three CSU campuses is displayed below for the best and
the worst months in the twelve-month period covered in this report.

Table 13.1 – System Profile: Campus Network Downtime in Total and Averages Minutes per Month (All
Campuses)
Downtime
Planned
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Planned
Unplanned
Best Month
Average Minutes
1999/2000 (Baseline Year)
420 (7 hrs)
19 (0.3 hrs)
125 (2.1 hrs)
6 (0.1 hr)
2000/2001
245 (4.1 hrs)
11 (0.3 hr)
365 (6.1 hrs)
16 (0.2 hr)
Change from Baseline
-175 (-2.9 hrs)
-8 (-0.1 hr)
240 (4.0 hrs)
10 (0.2 hrs)
Total Minutes
Worst Month
Total Minutes
Average Minutes
4,119 (68.7 hrs)
5,366 (89.4 hrs)
187 (3.1 hrs)
244 (4.1 hrs)
9,785 (163.1 hrs)
11,595 (193.3 hrs)
425 (7.1 hrs)
504 (8.4 hrs)
5,666 (94.4 hrs)
6,229 (103.8 hrs)
238 (4.0 hrs)
260 (4.3 hrs)
Source: Summer 2000 and 2001 Annual Campus Technology Surveys
Baseline Data:
Inter-Campus Network
Currently, 4Cnet links together, and provides access to the Internet for, a total of 30 sites in the California
State University, each with its own set of Wide Area and Local Area Networks. CSU sites include 23
campuses, 5 off-campus centers, the office of Government Affairs, and the Chancellor’s Office.
Determination of “downtime” for 4CNet is vastly more complicated than for any given campus. The
methodology used in this report (explained below) was developed by 4Cnet in 1999/2000 and was
applied for the first time to measure the inter-campus network performance for 2000/2001.


“4CNet downtime” – data connectivity was unavailable between a CSU campus border router(s)
or other electronics and adjacent 4CNet router, because of a 4CNet problem or circuit problem.
(Note: if the campus is redundantly connected, a failure of one connection that leaves the other
intact is not counted in this metric.)

“Internet connection downtime” – one or more CSU campuses, taken as a whole, could not
reach the Internet, taken as a whole. (Note: if a single campus host or LAN is unable to reach the
Internet, or some subset of the Internet is unreachable, the incident is not counted in this metric.)

Utilization – This is calculated, on a per-campus basis, by measuring, for the first business day
of each month, the peak utilization on the campus’s link to 4CNet. The peak utilization is derived
by measuring, every five minutes (or more frequently if feasible), the utilization and taking the
largest measurement.
If the campus is redundantly connected, only the primary link is
measured. The largest of the monthly measurements is then used. The percentage is derived by
taking this measurement and dividing by the physical capacity of the connection that was in place
at the time of the measurement.
Table 13.2 – System Profile: Inter-Campus Network Performance as Measured by Minutes of Non-Availability per
Month*
Services
Planned
Unplanned
4CNet Downtime
Best Month
Worst Month
2000/2001 (Baseline Year)
362 (0.027%)
1,020 (0.079%
200 (0.015%)
57,600 (4.444%)
Internet Connection Downtime
Best Month
Worst Month
362 (0.027%)
200 (0.015%)
1,020 (0.079%
57,600 (4.444%)
Source: Summer 2001 Annual Systemwide Technology Survey
*The total number of “minutes per month” is 1,296,000 (the number of minutes in 30 days times 30, the number of CSU sites served by 4CNet). Downtime for the inter-campus
network is calculated by multiplying the number of minutes per outage by the number of sites affected. For example, if three campuses experience an outage of 10 minutes, 30
minutes of downtime is logged for the network. In the above table, the portion of all minutes per month network connectivity was not available is shown as a percentage.
Access Infrastructure-3
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
The ability of a network to transport information is typically defined in terms of “bandwidth”. The typical
link from the 4CNet backbone to a CSU campus has a bandwidth of 155 megabits/second; i.e., the link
can carry up to 155 million bits each second. The bandwidth that is being used, or that is available for
use, is determined by measuring the actual amount of data carried on a network link in a specified unit of
time (typically one second), and dividing that figure by the bandwidth of the link. If, for example, the
actual amount of data carried on the link in one second is 12 megabits, the utilization of that link during
that second is 23/155 or 14.8%.

Table 13.3 – System Profile: Inter-Campus Network Traffic as Percent of Bandwidth Utilization
Fiscal Year
2000/2001 (Baseline Year)
Average Bandwidth Utilization
13.0%
Peak Bandwidth Utilization
32.0%
Source: Summer 2001 Annual Systemwide Technology Survey
As noted in the above table, 4CNet currently provides adequate capacity to CSU campuses to support
inter-campus traffic and connection to the Internet. For this reason, no funding for 4CNet improvement
was included in the TII upgrade. Because inter-campus and Internet connection is vital to the success of
the ITS, inter-campus network performance is included in Measures of Success. Moreover, the
improvements to campus technology infrastructures will intrinsically increase demand for access to the
4CNet backbone network, since it will increase the number of networked users on each campus.
Measurement:
Compliance of all inter-campus and intra-campus networks with CSU established standards by 2008.
The quality of network service available to students, faculty and staff is dependent in part on the physical
infrastructure and in part on such other factors as the compatibility of networking equipment, protocols
and operating systems, and on the effectiveness of network operations’ management. To provide the
high-speed communications envisioned in the ITS-TII, network operations as well as in the physical
infrastructure must be seamless throughout the entire system. Adoption of common standards is a critical
first step toward establishing for the CSU system a coherent telecommunications environment by the year
2008.
Change Data:
Intra-Campus Network Standards
The number of local area networks supported by CSU campuses appears to have been reduced
somewhat. It is unclear, however, whether this reduction is attributable to consolidation or to reporting by
two fewer campuses than in the previous year.

Table 13.4 – Campus Profile: Number of Local Area Networks by Number of Campuses
1 - 3 LANs
No. of Campuses
3 – 24 LANs
No. of Campuses
8
1
7
3
-1
2
25 – 49 LANs
50 – 99 LANs
No. of Campuses
No. of Campuses
1999/2000 (Baseline Year)
2
6
2000/2001
2
4
Change from Baseline Year
0
-3
100 (+) LANs
No. of Campuses
Total LANs
All Campuses
4
1,194
3
1,090
-1
-64
Source: Summer 2000 and Summer 2001 Annual Campus Technology Surveys
The number of wide area networks did decline somewhat, but not so dramatically as the figures in the
following table would suggest. A misunderstanding of the definition last year caused one campus to
overstate its WANs by about 150. The corrected figure for the current year will be used in measuring
future change.
Access Infrastructure-4
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure

Table 13.5 – Campus Profile: Number of Wide Area Networks by Number of Campuses
1 WAN
No. of Campuses
2-3 WANs
No. of Campuses
13
5
13
4
0
-1
4-5 WANs
6-9 WANs
No. of Campuses
No. of Campuses
1999/2000 (Baseline Year)
0
2
2000/2001
1
1
Change from Baseline Year
1
-1
10 (+) WANs
No. of Campuses
Total WANs
All Campuses
1
(202)
0
36
-1
-167
Source: Summer 2000 and Summer 2001 Annual Campus Technology Surveys
Efforts to achieve greater coherence advanced somewhat as more campuses chose to adopt common
network architecture, protocols and operating systems. An increase (by two) in the number of campuses
reporting this year had the effect of lowering slightly the average percent with common operating systems.

Table 13.6 – Campus Profile: Adoption of Common Network Standards by Percent and Number of Campuses
Common
Network
Component
Under 50% of
Networks with
Common
Standards
No. of
Campuses
Architecture
/Protocols
Operating
System
50-79% of
80-89% of
90-99% of
Networks with
Networks with
Networks with
Common
Common
Common
Standards
Standards
Standards
No. of
No. of
No. of
Campuses
Campuses
Campuses
1999/2000 (Baseline Year)
1
2
0
1
100% of
Networks with
Common
Standards
No. of
Campuses
Median
Percent with
Common
Standards
1
11
5
95.0%
2
8
1
95.0%
3
5
10
99.0%
4
5
4
92.5%
2000/2001
Architecture
/Protocols
Operating
System
1
2
0
1
Change from Baseline Year
Architecture
/Protocols
Operating
System
0
0
2
-6
5
4.0%
0
0
2
-3
3
-2.5%
Source: Summer 2000 and Summer 2001 Annual Campus Technology Surveys
Baseline Data:
Physical Infrastructure Standards for Network Connectivity
The CSU developed Minimum Baseline Standards for voice, data and video (VDV) connectivity for both
people (faculty and staff) and spaces (instructional and administrative). Generally speaking,
administrative spaces, whether private offices or open offices with cubicles, have a 1:1 ratio of people to
connections, i.e. outlets for voice, data and video housed in a faceplate. The standards specify the
number of network connections that are to be provided for instructional spaces of various types. The
standards also recognize so called “high technology spaces” (e.g., computer labs, multimedia design
centers, distance learning production studios) which require many more connections. Under the Minimum
Baseline Standards, campuses can designate only a certain percentage of total instructional spaces as
high technology. (See Appendix B, Minimum Baseline Technology Infrastructure Standards.)
In previous years, standards defined voice, data and video separately. As technology has evolved, this
distinction is no longer applicable and the general assumption is that a connection meeting today’s
defined capability may provide multiple services. The number of connections needed therefore remains
unchanged, but the media providing connectivity may be the same for data, voice and video.
Also of note is that the actual bandwidth of a minimum baseline connection is a moving target. In 1996 a
capacity of 10 Mbps was deemed adequate; today it is 100 Mbps. Consistent with hardware and software
trends, greater connectivity can be purchased for the same price today compared to lower levels of
Access Infrastructure-5
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
connectivity five years ago. Since campus installations under the TII have not yet occurred, the increased
standards apply.
As part of the TII, each campus was required to hire a pre-qualified consultant to develop the preliminary
plan for the buildout of the infrastructure. Those consultants used the CSU’s Minimum Baseline
Standards to define the connection/outlet entitlement of each campus under the TII. These consultant
reports were completed during fiscal year 2000/2001 for 17 campuses, and are currently in progress on
the remaining campuses.
The baseline data presented in the November 2000 report did not reflect this entitlement. Rather, the
information presented in the report was a best effort on the part of the campuses to define what they
believed to be the status of campus network connectivity in terms of the Minimum Baseline Standards.
Because interpretation and application of the standards differed from campus to campus, data reported
last year were not consistent across campuses. The availability this year of detailed, building-by-building
space analyses by the consulting engineers provide a more consistent view of current campus capability
in terms of the Minimum Baseline Standards at a common point in time before implementation of TII
improvements. In the interest of greater accuracy, this Measures of Success report replaces the
1999/2000 baseline data with the information
about the entitlements defined for each campus
All Humboldt classrooms are connected to the Internet, but
access speeds vary from 2 Mbps to 10 Mbps. Faculty know
in the Preliminary Plans.
that by Fall 2003, every one of those classrooms will support
network access speeds of at least 100 Mbps through the TII
As defined herein and in subsequent reports, the
project, and they will be able to trust the system to deliver
baseline data constitute the number of network
full-motion video and computer simulations into their
classrooms from remote sites.
connections to which each campus is entitled
under the TII. Changes from the baseline will
-Humboldt State University
show how many connections/outlets have been
added by a campus, and how many existing,
non-standard connections have been retrofitted to meet minimum baseline standards. In this way,
progress will be tracked towards attaining the quantity and quality of connectivity to which each campus is
entitled.
The main purpose of the Measures of Success is to assess the success of the ITS as the prerequisite
connectivity is provided. CSU believes that provision of this baseline entitlement and changes to it in
subsequent years, is the most effective indicator of campus progress.

Table 13.7 – Campus Profile: Progress Toward Meeting Minimum Baseline Infrastructure Standards
Campus
Entitlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
812
2,231
3,524
3,558
4,263
5,466
5,611
6,140
Meet
Standards
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
34
Percent
Campus
Entitlement
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.6%
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
All
6,163
6,524
6,535
7,949
9,950
10,084
11,665
12,861
13,885
14,046
17,532
148,799
Source: Preliminary Engineering Plans for implementing the ITS-Technology Infrastructure Initiative
Access Infrastructure-6
Meet
Standards
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
94
Percent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure
II.
To provide students, faculty and staff with network access that allows information
searching and retrieval and research within and beyond the CSU.
Measurement:
Provision of 7 by 24 network access to all faculty, staff and students.
The ability of students, faculty and staff to use the CSU data network depends on access to appropriately
equipped and configured computer workstations connected to 4Cnet. It also depends on the capability of
the network to meet whatever traffic demands that may be placed on it at the expected level of service.
Information about access to computer workstations is included in the discussion of Initiative 4A, Baseline
User Hardware and Software Access. The characteristics, capacity and performance of CSU data
networks were described above.
Baseline Data:
Availability of High Speed Network Connectivity
To qualify as “high-speed,” a workstation must have a direct (not shared) connection to network that
enables 100-155 Mbps (million bits per second) or faster transmission from the desktop to the Internet.
This is the speed required to support full-motion video, a useful indicator of the bandwidth required for
applications routinely used in the sciences. An error in the technical specifications for high-speed
connectivity in the summer 2001 survey caused discrepancies that were unable to be corrected. Change
data on the number of workstations capable of supporting high-speed network connection will be reported
in the 2002 Measures of Success report.
Baseline Data:
Personal Computer Ownership
Development and maintenance of the network are an obligation of the institution. Anytime access to an
adequate workstation and to the network, however, is the shared responsibility of individual students,
faculty and staff and of the university. It is in the interest of the university to provide network access to
facilitate the performance of tasks related to an individual’s job or role on campus. Except for employees
whose absence from a campus or other university work site requires provision of equipment to connect
regularly by voice and data, acquisition of a computer and the means to access the network is the joint
responsibility of the individual and the institution.
The policy goal of the CSU is to ensure that all students have 24-hour access to a personal computer and
the network. Although only five percent of CSU comparison institutions require computer ownership by
students compared to nine percent in the CSU, 34% and 50%, respectively, strongly recommend
ownership. As the SBRI data below suggest, actual ownership is almost universal for both students and
faculty in the CSU. Moreover, fully 85% of CSU campuses have acceptable use policies for the use of email and Web sites compared to 93% of public four-year institutions nationally.
Students’ ability to access and use computers appears to match generally the high importance attached
to such access. Students were asked whether they owned personally an operational computer and
whether they had access to a computer workstation provided by the university to complete schoolwork. All
but 7 of the 3,204 participants in the survey (99.8%) answered the question about personal ownership
and all but 62 (98.1%) responded to the question about access to a university-provided computer.





Almost all students said they owned personally an operational computer. The average length of
ownership was 2.6 years.
Differences in ownership ranged from 88.0% to 95.8% among ethnic groups, and from 93.2% to
96.2% by class level (lower division, upper division and post baccalaureate).
Almost all students said they had access to a university-provided workstation.
Access to a university-provided computer workstation was high regardless of ethnicity (see table
below), class level (86.9% to 96.1%) or field of study (88.2% to 97.4%).
The results of the student survey indicate that the policy goal of assuring that all CSU students
have 24-hour access to a personal computer and to the network has been nearly achieved.
Access Infrastructure-7
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure

Table 13.8 – Student Access to a Personal Computer by Ethnicity
Mode of Access
Ethnicity
African-American
Asian
Hispanic
White
Personally Own an Operational Computer
Number
176
462
612
1,325
Percent
88.0%
95.3%
92.2%
95.8%
Have Access to a University-Provided
Computer Workstation
Number
Percent
185
94.9%
448
92.9%
621
94.5%
1,276
94.3%
Source: Spring 2001 Biennial Student Technology Survey
CSU students use computers extensively at home, at work and on campus. Most respondents reported
using a computer for some purpose every day for an average of 16.37 hours per week. Over half of these
hours (55.6%) were spent on work related to their classes. Those who reported using a computer were
asked the locations at which the use occurred. Almost all used a computer a home. More than two thirds
reported using a computer on campus, and over a third of students used computers at work.
The highest average number of hours per week spent on computing occurred at work. Students spent an
average of 10.6 hours per week on a computer at home compared with just under six hours per week
using a computer on campus. The amount of time spent using a computer on campus varied considerably
depending on students' field of study. The average for students in engineering and computer science was
highest (14.4 hours per week), while students in education averaged just under nine (8.8 hours per week).

Table 13.9 – Student Personal Computer Use
Frequency of Use
General
Home
Campus
Work
Other
Average Hours per
Week
16.4
10.6
5.8
15.8
4.8
Location of Use
As Percent
93.6%
69.6%
39.3%
7.8%
Use Computer Daily
Use Computer Weekly
82.4%
77.9%
29.2%
78.5%
9.7%
15.1%
19.8%
43.0%
16.5%
34.8%
Source: Spring 2001 Biennial Student Technology Survey
Measurement:
Baseline Data:
Demonstration of user satisfaction with ease of use of the network.
Student, Faculty and Staff Access to and Satisfaction with Network Use
According to national survey data, CSU campuses are much more likely than other public four-year
institutions to provide off-campus, dial-up (ISP) services, free of charge, for both students and faculty.
Virtually all CSU students are required to use the campus computer network in connection with their
coursework, whether to access the Internet, retrieve materials from sites on the World Wide Web or to
send and receive information by e-mail. In the SBRI surveys, faculty, staff, and students, were asked
about the way(s) in which they connected to the campus computer network and how satisfied they were
with the means of connectivity.
Students




The level of access to a computer workstation appears to match generally the level of importance
students attributed to the availability of computing and network resources (8.40).
Most students said they used a campus connection to access the network. Typical locations
where students can access the network from a computer include the library, computer
laboratories, dormitories and other public access areas.
More than half of the respondents also (or, in some cases, instead) connected to the campus
network through an independent Internet Service Provider.
About the same percentage said they connected to the campus network with a modem of some
kind (standard, cable or DSL).
Access Infrastructure-8
MOS III: Initiative 4B-Access Infrastructure

Students reported greater satisfaction with accessing the network from campus than from a
modem or through an Internet Service Provider. Satisfaction ratings ranged from a mean score
of 7.54 for connection by modem to 8.38 for connection from campus.
Faculty




Almost all faculty use the campus computer network to connect with the Internet, and express a
high level of satisfaction with this service.
Almost all faculty also use campus e-mail services, but are marginally less satisfied with this
service.
Just under half of the faculty use an Internet service provider to connect to the campus network
from off campus. They are much less satisfied with this means of connectivity than with campus
access.
Almost three-fourths of the faculty use a modem (including DSL, cable types) to connect with the
campus network from off campus. The level of satisfaction is much lower than for on-campus
network access.
Staff/Administrators



Virtually all CSU staff are highly satisfied with their ability to access campus email and the
Internet from on campus.
One half of CSU staff members access the campus network remotely using a modem and are
minimally satisfied with that use.
One fourth of CSU staff use an Internet service provider and are moderately satisfied with their
ability to access the campus network.
Faculty are far more likely to use a modem connection to the network than students and staff. In general,
faculty and staff tend to be more satisfied with on-campus network services than students; but less
satisfied than students with modem and ISP connectivity.

Table 13.10 – System Profile: Faculty, Staff and Student Use of Network Services by Mode of Access and User
Group
Mode:
Group
Faculty
Staff/Administrators
Students
On-Campus
Number
Percent
3,085
98.0%
2,229
96.2%
2,709
84.6%
Modem
Number
Percent
2,250
71.5%
1,159
50.3%
1,690
53.2%
ISP
Number
1,415
619
1,708
Percent
45.0%
26.7%
53.5%
Campus E-Mail
Number
Percent
3,086
98.0%
2,252
97.1%
2,709
84.6%
Source: Summer 2000 Biennial Staff Technology Survey, Fall 2000 Biennial Faculty Technology Survey, and Spring 2001 Biennial Student Technology Survey

Table 13.11 – System Profile: Faculty, Staff and Student Satisfaction with Network Services
Mode:
Group
Faculty
Staff/Administrators
Students
On-Campus
Mean
SD
8.51
1.68
8.74
1.48
7.68
2.28
Modem
Mean
6.55
6.65
7.54
ISP
SD
2.55
2.39
2.27
Mean
6.80
7.13
7.84
SD
2.39
2.16
1.95
Campus E-Mail
Mean
SD
8.34
1.85
8.52
1.66
7.68
1.71
Source: Summer 2000 Biennial Staff Technology Survey, Fall 2000 Biennial Faculty Technology Survey, and Spring 2001 Biennial Student Technology Survey
*Satisfaction scale: zero to ten, where one equates to not at all satisfied and ten equates to extremely satisfied
Access Infrastructure-9