The funding model for our Resnet is based upon per/port charges. As we started
adding wireless to the dorms (paid for by the port fees), we were very concerned
about users not switching to "free" wireless . We ended setting up a separate
policy domain for the wireless in Resnet. Normally all students can use the
wireless for free, but if you live in the dorms you must pay for a wired port to
us the wireless in the dorms. It seems a little weird that students that live in
the dorm must pay, but students who are just visiting can use the wireless for
free, but it makes sense.
We also set limits on wireless usage. Students can use 500MB (off-campus) per
week, but if you live in the dorms and register a port you receive between
4-15GB/week (depending on what tier you purchase). This discourages
port/wireless sharing as you would be sharing a finite resource.
David Spindler
University of Texas at Austin
ITS-Networking
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Wilson Dillaway wrote:
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/.
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
