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  Voic  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 on- going financial commitments 15