Wireless Directions University of California, Davis Wireless Technology Team February, 2001

UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team2 Market View Market Acceptance Time in the Market Place Market Expectations Reality Check Demonstration of Value Productivity Trigger Months

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team3 Wireless in Transition Favors exposure to the widest possible set of campus users Cannot achieve Favors unique solutions May interfere with public areas May exclude Instructional areas Always possible Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control The basic deployment of wireless technologies will follow directions that are typically mutually exclusive.

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team4 Service Deployment  Uniform Service Model  Aggregation of Demand  Standardized Interfaces  Minimized Interference Cannot achieve  Department defines coverage  No Standardized Interface  Interdepartmental Interference likely  Dept. Managed Service Model  No common funding or Support models  Public areas covered  Managed incremental growth  Greatest coverage to the largest user base at the least cost  Client irritation Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control The basic deployment strategy is driven by a composite set of “general public” and “departmental specific” functional need assessments

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team5 Policy Development/Enforcement  Standard Access policies  Standard hardware & software policies  Central monitoring of use  Central Interference policy  Campus wide funding model Cannot achieve  High flexibility on use policies  Dept control of access  Dept control of hardware & software  Dept control of interference issues  Dept control of funding  Limited areas are easier to monitor  Less interference issues  Less robust funding model required Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control Regardless of the deployment strategy, comprehensive policies and enforcement directives will be needed to control the emerging wireless environment.

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team6 Business Risk  High Level of expertise available to campus  Integration with other campus core systems  Standardized repair and maintenance  Regular refresh Cannot achieve  Depts. develop in-house expertise  Integration only with dept specific systems  Increased risk of obsolescence  Multiple vendors/systems cause higher cost of ownership for campus as a whole.  Fewer locations mean lower integration costs  Lower training and maintenance costs for equipment  Lower cost to exit into newer technologies Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control Business risks affect every aspect of the final strategy. Of key importance to the institution is the ability to meet the increasing sophistication of our wireless constituents.

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team7 Conformance To Standards  Economies of scale  Lower training and operational costs  Easiest to monitor for conformance Cannot achieve  Departments define and implement all access and use guidelines  Highest focus on unique needs  Must address frequency interference issues  Common standards maintained  Standard systems available on demand  Simplified technical and functional requirements Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control The University has found it necessary to define a comprehensive set of technical and “acceptable use” policies governing existing core telecommunications services. Adding wireless services to the existing mix will require development and adherence to new standards.

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team8 Security Coverage  Parallels existing core systems  Easiest to manage  Common policy enforcement  Minimizes service loss impact Cannot achieve  Security varies by department  Individual user irritation moving between areas  Support and compatibility issues  Common policy enforcement  Access across geographical boundaries Comprehensive Specific Areas DecentralizedCentralized ControlAccess to “the network”and access to “the database” are often conflicting scenarios. The goal is to deploy a system that protects both.

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team9 Management Issues Centralization The ability of the campus to identify,track, and manage a single seamless wireless system is maximized Single accountability for design and deployment assures adherence to standards Total costs can be identified and managed in unison with other campus core telecommunications services Focus on broadest set of constituent needs may limit departmental depth of feature selection and use Decentralization Systems can be rapidly deployed based on departmental initiative Systems will reflect departmental functional requirements Deployed systems are likely, almost assured, to cause interference without a central design strategy Policies will need to be developed to mitigate inevitable issues of frequency interference Total cost of ownership will be invisible to senior campus management

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team10 Funding Impacts Budgetary impact $10.5M (based on known $1.50/square foot from Cisco/Microsoft) Approximate client base capability 20,000 to 40,000 based on $250 - $500 per user macro cost from Ericsson and Alcatel Does not eliminate wired support Additional personnel for design and support Existing servers may need upgrades and/or significant configuration changes May impact existing campus technology funding models Will require new funding and billing models Changes in technology could obsolete the investment overnight

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team11 Directions Comprehensive Specific Areas Coverage DecentralizedCentralized Control 2001/2002 Public Areas 2001/2002 Departmental & Instructional Areas Comprehensive Coverage concurrent 2002/2004

February, 2001UC Davis Wireless Evaluation Team12 Looking Forward What is driving wireless deployments today? What is the most cost effective deployment method for the campus as a whole? How does the campus take responsibility for the technical obsolescence issues? There are serious issues when comparing the technical characteristics of “shared” vs. “switched” data access. With the requirement that UC Davis students have a computer, we expect to see a dramatic increase in demand for wireless access that is not aligned with departmental requirements.