The other factor in resnet applications is who is paying the bills. Some campuses require students to live on campus. Others compete directly with off-campus housing for revenue. Still others, housing and dining services are income sources to the school.
Poor wireless becomes a student satisfaction issue. This can result in students leaving the school altogether (retention), or simply students moving to private housing (loss of revenue to housing). Both have a direct financial impact to the school. Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Jon Young <j...@network-plumbers.com> wrote: > > Chuck, > That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to > support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent > anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our > stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student > Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. > Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that > have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll > leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. > > As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I am > unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this area so it is > accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on anecdotal (but > consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad swath of institutions. > Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions of the those institutional > personnel, not direct student surveys. > > That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder > opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for effective > wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a strong tendency > to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers are doing and the > ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this. > > Thanks, > Jon > Vantage Technology Consulting Group > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Enfield <chu...@psu.edu> wrote: >> John, I’ve often heard it said that wireless is important to recruiting and >> retention, but I’ve yet to find any solid foundation for the claim. This >> may be because those search terms in Google return so much unrelated >> information that the good data is hard to find, or it could be that the >> claim is tenuous. Can you point us to any sources to substantiate it? I’m >> skeptical, but open to evidence. It would definitely change the way I think >> about our wireless services in relation to business needs. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Chuck Enfield >> >> Manager, Wireless Systems & Engineering >> >> Telecommunications & Networking Services >> >> The Pennsylvania State University >> >> 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 >> >> ph: 814.863.8715 >> >> fx: 814.865.3988 >> >> >> >> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Young >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:43 PM >> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) >> service, or not to provide (wireless) service... >> >> >> >> We consult with many higher-ed institutions and the question your President >> has posed about buying bulk data is a real one that many institutions have >> looked into. We are frequently asked this question (same question for >> cellular when it is time to replace the phone system) when we assist schools >> with the network and WiFi strategy so I can tell you that if you define the >> "some schools are investigating" this by asking their independent >> consultants, that is true. If you are asking if it is remotely viable and >> if anyone is seriously pursuing it beyond asking the question, the answer as >> you expect is a resounding "no" for all the reasons others have articulated >> on this thread. >> >> >> >> That said, a couple of things to note: >> >> Many schools have chosen to successfully outsource their resnet including >> wireless (see the recent resnet report from ACUTA). That is sometimes by >> letting the local cable company come in and offer service in the residence >> halls and sometimes by outsourcing resnet to a company like Apogee. There >> are pros and cons to insourcing vs outsourcing resnet but I think it is >> reasonable to consider if that is the right choice for your institution. >> >> >> >> Of I think larger importance to your President - the quality of wireless >> internet is a key component of student recruitment and retention at many >> institutions. At the request of one Ivy, I even wrote an internal white >> paper justifying ubiquitous WiFi across campus based primarily on student >> recruitment and retention. I suggest speaking with your admissions group >> and getting their thoughts on the importance of high-quality wireless >> internet (define that how you like) in the res halls and the rest of campus. >> >> >> >> Good luck, >> >> Jon Young >> >> Vantage Technology Consulting Group. >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Brian Helman <bhel...@salemstate.edu> wrote: >> >> I have a little more information to provide now. I absolutely appreciate >> that it will be extremely tempting to respond with biased opinions. I don’t >> think there is anything that can be said that I haven’t already expressed to >> my team. However, that will not help me write up my recommendation. So >> that being said, feel free to chime in with tangible reasons to do this or >> not… >> >> >> >> Apparently, our president heard that some schools are investigating >> purchasing bulk data contracts with mobile (“cellular”) carriers for data. >> The idea is, we would stop providing 802.11g/n/ac wireless in the residence >> halls and instead provide students with the abilities to register their >> devices with the mobile carrier to use 4G/LTE data. The University will pay >> for this. >> >> >> >> Pros: >> >> No wireless (802.11) to purchase, support >> >> Reduced POE requirements on switches >> >> No wireless driver/configuration mismatches problems to support >> >> >> >> Cons: >> >> Is mobile wireless signal available everywhere inside the buildings? Costs >> to improve signal. >> >> What speeds are available (what range of speeds)? Is it by user or >> aggregate? >> >> How is congestion handled? >> >> What devices – mobile phones only? Hotspots to provide access to >> non-cellular devices (e.g wifi-only tablets; laptops) >> >> More Ethernet ports needed for devices that previously depended on wireless >> >> What provider(s)? >> >> Support shifted from “device to institutional wifi” to “device to myfi” or >> “devide to 3rd party” >> >> Cost per user, per GB? >> >> >> >> What else? >> >> >> >> If you know of any institutions who have attempted this (I have heard MIT is >> looking at it, but we aren’t MIT), please let me know. >> >> >> >> By the way, the background here is .. we installed our 802.11n network ~5 >> years ago and haven’t had any commitment to fund it since. So now we are >> trying to deal with capacity (BYOD) issues that didn’t exist 5 years ago >> while upgrading to 11ac. Of course, it’s not a 1:1 swap of equipment since >> we’d be migrating from 2.4GHz to 2.4+5GHz. That puts the costs for forklift >> upgrades pretty high (did I mention I’ve been unsuccessfully asking for >> funding for 3 years?). >> >> >> >> I believe this can all best be summarized with a simple .. Oy. >> >> >> >> -Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerkan, Kristijan >> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:34 PM >> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or >> not to provide (wireless) service... >> >> >> >> As a public institution in the EDU sector we always had a byod policy in our >> dorm network, specifically including „anything You want to connect to the >> port in Your room“. >> >> >> >> Parameters: >> >> -5k+ dorm rooms (1.8k the largest segment, 20 the smallest) >> >> -120km radius >> >> -at least one (mostly two) RJ45 port per room (cat5-7 to the switch, fiber >> afterwards) >> >> -10/100MBit ports (deliberatly did not go for 1GBit at the edge) >> >> -no additional accounting, just dhcp with opt82 >> >> -public ips behind reflexive acl (no shaping, etc.) >> >> -uplink via the federal research network >> >> -service neutral (whoever wants to can use a DSL provider also/instead and >> may use the inhouse cable from their basement to their room for it) >> >> -one service number (fixed number, forwarded to five cellphones – whoever >> picks up first wins) >> >> -managed by ~10 students (pro bono, but with a couple of incentives) >> >> >> >> That beeing said, here are a few points why this works for us and is not >> generally applicable: >> >> -people have to work together to archive common goals (state, local, >> university and dorm administration – technical and administrative staff) >> >> -it does not take much to put a service neutral CAT cable into every room >> while they are beeing built/renovated instead of a cheaper telephone cable, >> but it does take a joint effort and common goals >> >> -to every dorm room there is a rent/contract, so we know who is „behind“ it >> and can make one specific person liable (opt82) >> >> -there are only single-bed rooms (this is a cultural thing and different >> than in the US, I guess noone around here would even rent a shared room) >> >> -almost no dorms are adjacent to the classrooms/labs (seamless wireless >> coverage/services wouldn’t be possible anyway) >> >> -in order to find enough students (5 for the core team) who will do the >> occasionally needed actual work without payment, a balance between demands >> and incentives is important >> >> >> >> Effect: >> >> -very low capex and extremly low opex for the dorm network [numbers only off >> list] >> >> -very limited support calls (maybe 2/week; maybe 10-20 during the >> move-in-phase, mostly students from the states asking about the non-existant >> login/pw) >> >> -no need to worry about deprication charges or every new feature (regarding >> wireless: ABG to N to AC; MIMO, fequency analysis chipsets; 2.4ghz to 5ghz, >> wave2) >> >> -the least administrative overhead possible >> >> -none of the students in our networking team had problems finding jobs after >> they left (no trouble finding volunteers, very long participation period) >> >> -scalabe system; got us from ~1.2k rooms (back in ’99) within a 1km radius >> to 5k+ (today) in a 120km radius >> >> -effective support answers („Yes, You can also attach every AP You want to >> You port… No, don’t worry, if You are able to understand Your class reading, >> You will also understand vendor X’s manual…) >> >> -no secondary discussions (health, etc.) >> >> -plug&play experience for students >> >> -ability to consolidate our attention to more interesting projects; we still >> provide wireless (eduroam), but only in common areas away from the rooms >> (ALU/Aruba 6000, now 7210, anything between 124s and 270s except the cloud >> based APs) >> >> -over the years we had some (small and larger) dorms outsourced to different >> (small and large) companies who provided full wireless-only coverage, >> standard management as well as forbidden private wireless, but as our own >> model proved technically resiliant and cost-effective time and again, our >> external partners solutions didn‘t >> >> >> >> Basically our setup could be exactly what Your administrative staff/board is >> aiming for. >> >> My personal message to them would be to first and foremost take an honest >> look at how and why things are the way they are. >> >> If they just argue out of a mix of intuition and auserity, their good >> intentions will cause a fail (probably utterly and completely, like many >> others before). >> >> It is possible to run a cost effective plug&play network, with a high >> satisfaction rate amoung students (EDU did that long before the BYOD >> marketing hype). But that requires a high level of cooperation (belivers, >> ideally who themselves lived in dorms and remember how student life can be), >> common goals, success in overcoming obstacles and also constant vigilance >> and re-evaluation. >> >> From an administrative and oversight point of view this is a lot more and >> complex work than finding, distributing and approving funds. For various >> reasons it is also not always something that can be implemented everywhere >> or sustained for a meaningful period of time. Therefore it is often better >> to honestly deal with the geographic/personal/political reality and to solve >> the technical problem with money. >> >> Even if Your board would want to, a change towards a system like ours takes >> time. Your institution should definetly not run on an obsolete wireless >> infrastructure during that periode (and wear out its staff and cause stir >> among students in the process). >> >> Hope this helps to balance the biased view. ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Kris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Von: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] Im Auftrag von Brian Helman >> Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Mai 2015 17:23 >> An: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU >> Betreff: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide >> (wireless) service... >> >> >> >> A few weeks ago we made a pitch for funding to upgrade our res halls to >> 802.11ac. This request for funding has had an unforeseen effect. I’m not >> being asked to investigate NOT providing wireless networking in our res >> halls. Here are the options, as it has been described to me: >> >> >> >> -No institutional wireless. Let the students bring in their own AP’s >> >> -Some kind of managed service (wireless as a service) with 802.11 >> >> -Some kind of institutionally owned/leased mobile wireless (e.g we provide >> our own 4G) >> >> -Hybrid >> >> -Continue with 802.11n 2.4GHz and fill in holes as they pop up >> >> >> >> I’m not going to put my thoughts up here just yet. These are the >> options/thoughts as presented by the levels above me. >> >> >> >> Let the discussion begin…. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________ >> Brian Helman, M.Ed | Director, ITS/Networking Services | (: 978.542.7272 >> >> Salem State University, 352 Lafayette St., Salem Massachusetts 01970 >> >> GPS: 42.502129, -70.894779 >> >> >> >> ********** 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/. >> >> ********** 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/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
