Mike,
I'd agree with the comments from Cal Frye: if you offer two
equivalent (or nearly equivalent) services, and you impose a
charge for one of them and offer the other at no charge, you
shouldn't be surprised if there is an attempt to reduce local
expenses by migrating to the "no charge" service and canceling
standing orders for the "for fee" service. This user behavior
may damage the institution or interfere with the public good, but
the mere presence of institutional policy forbidding such
migration is hard to defend and hard to enforce -- people and
departments will choose local optimization over global priorities
when it is in their interest to do so.
It may be difficult to do, but one approach is to revisit
policies so that they harmonize institutional good and likely
user behavior. Free wireless in the presence of chargeback for
wired networks is only one of several contexts where this problem
arises; another is Voice over IP, or Skype, or cell phones, any
of which may undercut the institutional cost recovery rules for a
pre-existing PBX, for example.
EDUCAUSE's ECAR group wrote an interesting case study in
2005 entitled "Network Funding Models: Cornell University;
University of California, San Diego; and University of
Wisconsin–Madison", available at the following URL:
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/NetworkFundingModelsCorne/37689
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0502/cs/ECS0501.pdf
In this study, ECAR notes that each of the three
universities had historical network cost recovery models that
were not working for a variety of reasons, and which their
constituents were perceived to be "abusing". Each university
adopted a study process to develop a new chargeback model (each
different from the others) that more closely matched
institutional policy with desired user behavior, and was more
easily enforced.
Hope this helps...
Wilson Dillaway
Tufts University
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Adding wireless without losing the jacks?
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:23:58 -0500
From: Michael Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Wondering if others face a similar situation and what they are
doing about it. In short, what is *wireless* used for and what is
*wired* used for and how are the intended uses enforced?
We currently have a funding model that includes a per-jack
monthly charge for wired users. As we add wireless coverage to
these traditionally "wired floors" we are faced with the
potential of canceled jacks and a migration to wireless. If other
schools have a similar funding model, how have you dealt with
this issue?
How are other schools dealing with a wireless overlay in
traditionally fully wired areas with respect to migration onto
wireless? Is migration away from the jacks desired? Is it
suppressed through policy restrictions? What has worked for
ensuring the wired infrastructure is still used? Just saying
"stay on the jack for better performance and security" doesn't
appear to be enough.
In IT we often discuss the need to upgrade older Cat3 jacks to
the newest cabling, as well as install wireless coverage in the
same areas. These two efforts seem at odds with each other and
appears financially risky to management. How are schools
achieving harmony in a mixed wired/wireless world?
Thanks,
Mike
-----------------------------------
Michael Dickson
Network Analyst
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Network Systems and Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
