BUDGET AND POLICY OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE REPORT
November 15, 1996
Network 21 Budget & Policy Oversight Committee
Carole Barone
Associate Vice-Chancellor - InformationTechnology
John Pascoe
Executive Associate Dean - Academic Programs, Veterinary Medicine
Darrel Ralls
Associate Vice-Chancellor - Facilities
Marilyn Sharrow
University Librarian
Dave Shelby
Assistant Dean, Division of Biological Sciences
Robert Shelton
Vice-Chancellor - Research
MEMBERS
Robert Blake
Spanish & Classics
Jerry Hallee
Special Assistant to Provost & Executive Vice-Chancellor
Janet Hamilton
Vice-Chancellor - Administration
Alan Jackman
Professor of Chemical and Materials Engineering
Jay Lund
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Richard Meisinger
Associate Vice-Chancellor - Planning & Budget
Wes Wallender
Professor, Land Air & Water Resources
Robert Loessberg-Zahl,
Principal Budget Analyst, Planning & Budget 
Carole Barone, Janet Hamilton,
Doug Hartline, Russ Hobby, Grazia Jaroff.
Robert Loessberg-Zahl, John Pascoe,
Darrell Ralls, Wes Wallender (chair).
Carole Barone, Jerry Hallee,
Doug Hartline, Alan Jackman.
Robert Loessberg-Zahl, Jay R. Lund, (chair),
Richard Meisinger, Dave Shelby.
Robert Blake, Ashish Kurani,
Alex Ledin, Bob Franks.
Marilyn Sharrow, Bob Loessberg-Zahl,
Alan Jackman, Carole Barone (co-chairs).
Doug Hartline, Director, IT:
Communications Resources
STAFF
Russ Hobby, Director, IT:
Advanced Networked & Scientific Applications
Buildout Subcommittee Members: 
Operations & Maintenance Subcommittee Members: 
Student Fee Subcommittee Members: 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In response to campus reaction to the recommendations in its March 18, 1996 report, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Grey accepted the Network 21 Budget and Policy Oversight Committee's recommendation that it reconsider the policy and funding strategy for completion and utilization of the network. The Committee formed three subcommittees to study the issues and the concerns of the campus community. This report sets forth the Committee's new recommendations. 

Network 21 Operation & Maintenance 

Annual network operations and maintenance costs now are estimated to be roughly $4.2 million/year (FY 1998-99 estimate), an increase of $1.8 million from the amount proposed in the March 18, 1996 Network 21 Completion and Utilization Plan. The O&M Subcommittee report explains the reasons for this substantial increase. 

Recommended Rate Structure 

The Committee recommends a "Multi-Part" rate structure to fund the network O&M costs.  

This structure allocates costs within two cost centers:  
  1. backbone costs that are largely fixed and better suited to be funded by central campus allocation; and  
  2. local building costs incurred as a result of user actions and decisions that are better suited to a monthly NAM charge to campus departments. 

Backbone costs, estimated to be $2.8 million per year, include the costs of maintaining the fiber and wiring between buildings, maintenance and replacement of electronics, and personnel needed to operate and maintain the network across the campus and into campus buildings. This cost center encompasses the Network Operations Center (NOC), the seven Area Distribution Facilities (ADF's), and the Building Distribution Facilities (BDF's). The network backbone services every campus connection, but the cost of operating and maintaining the Backbone component is almost entirely unaffected by the number of connections or the traffic (usage volume) over the system. The Internet connection costs also are included within this cost center. 

Local building costs, estimated to be $1.4 million per year, include the costs of maintaining the wiring, maintenance and replacement of electronics, and the personnel needed to operate and maintain the network inside the buildings from Individual Distribution Facilities (IDFs) to the wall NAMs. Each local connection increases the local building component costs. For example, each new connection (NAM) requires additional local electronics in the IDFs and replacement of these electronics every 3-5 years (hardware and labor costs). 

Funding Strategy  

Backbone Cost Funding -The Committee recommends that the Network Backbone expenses be funded largely by allocation of central campus funds to Information Technology. However, the Committee also recommends that certain categories of network users should pay their proportional share of Network Backbone costs to mitigate the impact on campus General Funds, particularly Instruction and Research (I&R) Funds. 

Local Cost Funding- The Committee does not believe campus units would be able to absorb the full local costs on July 1, 1997. Consequently, the Committee recommends a NAM charge beginning at a level sufficient to encourage campus units to consider the relative costs and benefits of local networking decisions, yet within the ability of the central campus to fund the difference through the temporary allocation of transition funds. 

There also will be Activation and New Connection fees. 

Owing to the uncertainty and volatility in the networking arena, the rate structure should remain simple and flexible for the next 3 to 5 years. At the same time, the campus needs to have confidence in the auditability of rates and costs and be assured of accountability for both the costs and performance of the network. Consequently, the Committee recommends the establishment of a Network Operations Oversight Committee (NOOC). 

Buildout of the Network 

The following principles should guide the expansion of Network 21: 
Student Fee 

Students want access to adequate technology now. The enormity of their appetite could serve as justification to argue for a higher student fee now. The Committee estimates that the campus would require a student fee of $200 to $250 annually (assuming one-third set-aside for financial aid) beginning in 1997-98 just to meet unfunded operating priorities. A system wide fee that starts out at $40 to $60 in 1996-97 and does not reach $200 for two to three years would not meet campus needs. The Committee, moreover, believes that the establishment of a System wide fee, regardless of level, would make it difficult to proceed with a campus-based fee. It is the opinion of the Committee that students would resist paying two technology fees: one imposed by the campus and one imposed System wide. Consequently, the level of a System wide fee would set the practical short-term limit on the ability of the campus to raise funds for instructional technology through student fees. 

REVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 

The Network 21 Completion and Utilization Plan was presented to Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Grey on March 18, 1996 (http://net21.ucdavis.edu/computilrpt/planreport.htm). Provost Grey then widely disseminated the Plan to the entire campus community on March 22 inviting comments, questions, and suggestions. The campus community response was direct, significant, and instructive. This consultation and other developments clearly required reconsideration of several Network 21 Policy and Oversight Committee recommendations contained in the March 18, 1996 report. The following developments have shaped the revised recommendations presented in this report. 

Direction to the Committee. Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Grey directed the Committee to present revised alternatives for completing and utilizing Network 21 by October 15, 1996 for presentation to the campus community during the Fall Quarter. The Committee requested and was granted an extension to complete its report by November 15, 1996. 

Lessons from March 18 Report Feedback. Based on the campus community's response to its original fee structure recommendations the Committee considered that its revised recommendations for a fee structure supporting operation & maintenance (O&M) of Network 21 should: 
  1. pass on at least some costs to all segments of the campus, and 
  2. provide campus units some ability to manage and control their costs. 

The Committee also undertook to assess if some operation and maintenance costs should be funded centrally, rather than charged to campus units, and to provide clear rationale for any such recommendations, e.g., differentiate between fixed costs and costs which increase with the number of network connections. 

New Cost and Funding Models. As additional information became available, the Committee determined that the cost and funding models adopted in the March 18, 1996 Network 21 Completion and Utilization Plan no longer applied. The new model must accommodate considerably increased costs. 

Uncertain Availability of Student Fee Revenues. The March 18, 1996 Committee report recommended a student technology fee, of which $0.7 million/year would be used to support the campus computer network. Student technology fees are being discussed at several levels in the UC system and on the Davis campus. The availability of student fee revenues for network operations and maintenance is unlikely to clarify soon. 

Construction Progress. Network 21 construction is underway, on schedule, and within budget. Digital Equipment Corporation is the lead contractor on the outside fiber plant and 3Com will provide the electronics. The first of six campus areas will be cut over to Network 21 in January or February 1997. 

Evolution of Network Communications Technology. UC Davis is responding to the same rapidly maturing and uncertain networking technology and cost environment as all other large university campuses, major corporations, and the various levels of government. Demand for networking capacity is growing exponentially with an uncertain saturation point, the off-campus Internet is being reconfigured with much greater capacity and cost, and the prospects are that within five years it will become economical to run the telephone system over a well-founded data networking infrastructure. The campus should be well-positioned by establishing its new networking infrastructure. We could not have delayed one year more without serious risk to many of our activities. 

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 

The reports of the three subcommittees formed to address the issues that arose from the campus discussions of the March 18, 1996 report follow in their entirety. The Committee felt that the campus community would want detailed information about its deliberations on these important, often complex, and difficult issues. 

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION 

Charge to the Subcommittee 

The Network 21 Operations and Maintenance Sub-Committee was charged to review the cost projections for the operation and maintenance of the network and re-examine strategies for the ongoing funding of network operations and maintenance in light of the cost estimates and campus feedback. 

History of Campus Funding of the Network 

As explained in the March 18, 1996 report, the campus has a history of under funding network operations that has resulted in the accumulation of deficits funded by diverting revenues from capital reserves for the campus telephone (voice) system. As a result, the voice system has inadequate capital reserves, posing risks for sustaining both the campus network and voice communications systems. 

Subcommittee Rate Recommendation Process 

The sub-committee began with an examination of the costs of network operations and maintenance to assess which costs could be attributable directly to user behavior in terms of the number of NAMs, number of devices, and amount of traffic on the system. Revised cost estimates were commissioned and explored to assess the sensitivity of costs to particular cost estimation assumptions. 

A wide range of rate-making philosophies was examined. The performance of each rate structure was assessed for each of several rate-making objectives. The recommended rate structure is discussed later in this report. Rejected rate structures are summarized at the end of this report. 

Rates were calculated that would be sufficient to cover all network expenses. These rates were then considered relative to their expected affordability to campus users. Financial transition strategies were then considered based on the perceived willingness of the campus to forego other worthy campus expenditures. 

ESTIMATED OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS 

The Committee has estimated that the costs of operating and maintaining the campus computing network in Fiscal Year 1998-99 will be approximately $4.2 million. These costs are summarized as follows:  This cost estimate is substantially higher than the operation and maintenance costs presented in the March 18, 1996 Network 21 Completion and Utilization Plan, an increase of approximately $1.8 million. There are four reasons for this increase. 
  1. Internet access will cost the campus $300,000 more because of the privatization of the Internet. 
  2. The Committee determined that the annual allowance for equipment maintenance and replacement should be increased by approximately $600,000 to allow for adequate maintenance and to reduce the network electronics replacement cycle from 7 years to a more realistic 5 years. 
  3. The campus determined that the existing modem pool should remain in service, even with a new off-campus Internet service, thus eliminating an anticipated $150,000 annual savings. 
  4. The Committee concluded that the Network O&M costs should be increased an additional $700,000 because these costs have previously been incorrectly included within the office (telephone) costs. Despite transfer of the $700,000, IT representatives believe that the campus telephone rates will continue to subsidize between $600,000-$800,000 in additional network costs. However, the Committee did not have adequate opportunity to fully analyze voice expenses and revenues and so accepted a somewhat conservative, although arbitrary, one-half of the IT-estimated costs. The Committee wants to be considerably more certain about the origins of the costs before transferring additional costs to the network. A complete and comprehensive analysis of the telephone expenses must be completed by the Network 21 Committee or some other oversight group during the next year. Accurate allocation of voice and data costs must be achieved given the present variation in cost recovery methods, i.e., the telephones are completely self-supporting and the network will rely heavily on central campus allocations.

It must be emphasized that the O&M cost projections are estimates and cannot provide budget certainty. The purpose of these estimates is to provide a reasonable impression of the financial load of network operations and maintenance on campus resources and a reasonable basis for establishing suitable recharge rates for part of these expenses. As knowledge of network operation and maintenance costs improves, rates are likely to require adjustment. 

RATE-MAKING OBJECTIVES 

While many considerations were discussed in the course of exploring the great number of rate alternatives, six basic objectives were chosen for more formal evaluation of alternative rate structures. These objectives included: 
  1. Rates must be capable of raising sufficient revenue for network operations and maintenance. This criterion was judged in conjunction with the possibilities of central burdening or other reallocations and the desire to protect campus instruction and research (I&R) funds. 
  2. Rates should encourage efficient use of the network. Rates should not encourage behavior that incurs significant costs without proportionate benefits to the campus. Rates should appropriately reward behavior that decreases system costs. 
  3. Users should be responsible for costs resulting from their use of the network. To the degree possible, costs to each user should reflect the costs caused by their network use decisions. There should be a direct link between the amount of fee charges and the cost of service. 
  4. Rates should be based on auditable costs and should encourage cost accountability for the various units providing and using network services. Rates should be calculated based on accountable system costs. There should be a means of holding network service activities accountable for costs. Several auxiliary recommendations arose from this criterion. 
  5. Simplicity. The rate structure should be simple and easily implemented. 
  6. Affordability. Rates should be affordable by campus units. Rates should be set such that, when balanced by appropriate central encumbrance and reallocations of resources, they do not unreasonably hinder units' abilities to pursue their university missions. Also, campus rates should not exceed those charged externally.  

RATE STRUCTURE, FUNDING STRATEGIES, AND RATE RECOMMENDATIONS 

Rate Structure Recommendations 

Many potential rate structures were evaluated based on the criteria discussed above. After considerable deliberation and analysis, the Sub-Committee recommends a "Multi-Part" rate structure to fund data network operation and maintenance for the campus. This structure allocates costs within two cost centers: (1) backbone costs that are largely fixed and better suited to be funded by central campus allocation; and  
(2) local building costs incurred as a result of user actions and decisions that are better suited to a monthly NAM charge to campus departments. 

1. Backbone Costs - These costs, estimated to be $2.8 million per year, include the costs of maintaining the fiber and wiring between buildings, maintenance and replacement of electronics, and personnel needed to operate and maintain the network across the campus and into campus buildings. This cost center encompasses the Network Operations Center (NOC), the seven Area Distribution Facilities (ADF's), and the Building Distribution Facilities (BDF's). The network backbone services every campus connection, but the cost of operating and maintaining the Backbone component is almost entirely unaffected by the number of connections or the traffic (usage volume) over the system. The internet connection costs are also included within this cost center.  

The estimated Backbone Costs for fiscal year 1998-99 are: 

a. Infrastructure Expenses $2,490,000 
b. Internet Access Expenses $300,000 

Total Annual Backbone Expenses $2,790,000 

2. Local Building Costs - These costs, estimated to be $1.4 million per year, include the costs of maintaining the wiring, maintenance and replacement of electronics, and the personnel needed to operate and maintain the network inside the buildings from the Individual Distribution Facilities (IDFs) to the wall NAMs. Each local connection increases the building component costs. For example, each new connection (NAM) requires additional local electronics in the IDFs and will also require the replacement of these electronics every 3-5 years (hardware and labor costs). These building component costs are relatively easy to estimate and audit.  

The local building costs for fiscal year 1998-99 are: 
Recommended Funding Strategy 

1. Backbone Cost Funding - The Committee recommends that the Network Backbone expenses be largely funded by allocation of central campus funds to Information Technology. However, the Committee also recommends that certain categories of network users should pay their proportional share of Network Backbone costs to mitigate the impact on campus General Funds, particularly Instruction and Research (I&R) Funds. The Backbone costs would be allocated as follows: 

a. Create Categories of Users and identify the number of NAMs for each category of user. The categories of users would include: 
  1. campus academic and administrative units that are I&R fund-eligible; and 
  2. campus units that are not I&R fund-eligible, e.g., Student Housing, UCD bookstore, University Extension, DANR, USDA, CVDL, etc.
b. Divide total Backbone costs by the total number of NAMs and allocate those costs to each category of user identified above. Central campus funds would be allocated to pay for the academic and administrative units that are I&R eligible. The remaining categories of users (units) would be assessed an annual charge (estimated to be $275/year-NAM) to pay their fair share of the Backbone costs. 

2. Local Building Cost Funding - Assess a monthly NAM Charge to campus units, the level where NAM decisions are made. The NAM charge would be computed and assessed on the following basis: 
  1. Total the costs associated with operating and maintaining the network within the building including wiring from the BDF to the NAM, the electronics in the IDFs, NAM inspections and the costs of replacing the electronics every 3-5 years (estimated to be $1.4 million). 
  2. Divide the above costs by the number of NAMs and then by twelve to determine the monthly per-NAM charge (estimated to be $9.80/month). 
A substantial part of network operation and maintenance cost is for servicing and periodically replacing local electronics dedicated to individual NAMs. These electronics costs vary directly and proportionately with the number of NAMs in the system. The committee realizes that a monthly charge at the level required fully to recover the estimated local costs would represent a significant burden to many units. 

Consequently, the Committee recommends using central campus funds to establish a NAM charge, beginning at a level between $4 and $6 per month, to be assessed to departments. This level of initial local charges was felt to be high enough to encourage campus units to consider the relative costs and benefits of local networking decisions, yet within the ability of the central campus to fund the difference through the temporary allocation of transition funds. Appendix A illustrates the affect of various rate levels on several campus units. 

For economic management of the network, it is desirable, over time, to decrease the central offset so that the monthly NAM charge to units eventually reflects all local variable costs. The recommended transition strategy should allow local units to reasonably adjust their network use decisions to reflect the cost and benefits to the unit. 

Value-Added and Optional Services 

Assess a one time $40 charge to activate a connection and a charge of $200-600, depending on the electronics and wiring required, to install a new 10-Base-T connection. 

Network service beyond basic 10-Base-T levels would incur higher electronics costs and would be reflected in higher monthly rates. Thus, monthly rates for 10BaseT connections would be higher than those for 10-Base-T. 

Network 21 will not be responsible for unit-based network extensions beyond the NAM. However, to aid in maintenance and operation of parts of the network extending beyond Network 21 via dumb hubs, it is recommended that Information Technology develop competitive optional service contracts and general educational and technical support materials for departments. 

It is likely that there will be other value-added, optional, or volume-based services. 

UCDnet Devices 

To cover the costs of services to buildings remaining on UCDnet, where NAMs are not used, charges would be assessed on a device basis at the rate established for NAMs. 

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RECOMMENDED STRATEGY 

In terms of the rate-making objectives identified in the previous section, the above rate structure appears to perform well. 

1. Rates must be capable of raising sufficient revenue for network operations and maintenance. Rates set at this level, combined with central campus revenues for central backbone funding for academic and administrative units and temporary central campus contributions to local electronics costs, provide sufficient revenues. 

2. Rates should encourage efficient use of the network. Setting monthly NAM charges equal to the direct costs to the system of an additional NAM provides the appropriate incentives to network decision-makers in local units. Higher monthly NAM rates would discourage use of NAMs. Lower monthly NAM rates would encourage activation o additional NAMs beyond the point where the local benefit of an additional NAM exceeds its costs to the campus. The proposed lower charges are a temporary transition measure. 

3. Users should be responsible for costs resulting from their use of the network. The monthly NAM charge makes users directly responsible for the additional costs they impose on the campus network. Conversely, any reduction in the number of NAM connections, which reduces local electronics costs to the network, is reflected in decreased fees to the unit. 

4. Rates should be based on auditable costs and should encourage cost accountability for the various units providing and using network services. Expenses associated with these rates are auditable. The rate-structure itself does not assure cost or performance accountability. Several auxiliary recommendations address this concern. 

5. Simplicity. This rate structure is not as simple as some rejected rate structures. But it is not judged by the sub-committee to be excessively complex. 

6. Affordability. The proposed rates are expected to avoid unreasonable interference in most university activities. Direct charges to academic and administrative units would be far less than those for commercial modem service with limited connect time. For other units (with the additional NAM assessment for fixed costs), connection costs approximate off-campus costs for much lower capacity ISDN lines with limited connect time (e.g., Cal Web - http://www.calweb.com). 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Budget reallocations will be required at every level of the campus 

The Committee remains committed to the following recommendation from its March 18, 1996 report: 

Some reallocation of existing campus resources should be carefully examined at the college/school level and at the central campus level. 

Some reallocation of resources is necessary to respond to the fundamental changes in networking and communication technology and costs. It seems more desirable to establish a rational and sustainable rate-making framework in this arena combined with reallocation of resources to make this framework function than to distort network communications rate structures and decision-making so as to avoid difficult resource allocation decisions. 

2. Importance of Retaining Flexibility 

Networking and communication technologies are in a state of transition. The costs are likely to remain uncertain over the next several years. According to Hal Varian, the Dean of the School of Information Management and Systems at UC-Berkeley: 

The Internet is a mature technology, but it is an immature economy. Many of the fundamental legal, economic, organizational issues remain to be solved. The biggest danger...lies in making critical choices prematurely. There are many issues where the "right" answers are very obscure....1 

The Committee recommends the establishment of a committee to continue to monitor the development of the campus networking environment and to review and recommend appropriate funding models. 

3. A Network Operations Oversight Committee 

This committee would report to the Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor. The NOOC would be one of several committees that advise the campus, the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, and the Associate Vice-Chancellor for Information Technology on information technologies. 

We recommend that the Network Operations Oversight Committee have the following charges: 
  1. Review IT-network service offerings and advise on the most appropriate mix of baseline and recharge services (when to charge or not and at what levels) and advise on rate structures that provide incentives for the most effective utilization of networking technologies. 
  2. Evaluate network rate proposals prior to their submittal to the campus Rate Committee. 
  3. Review IT-network operations performance against benchmarks, budget, and business plan. 
  4. Review services for their effectiveness in serving campus needs. 
  5. Recommend new or different services. 
  6. Recommend retirement of services. 
  7. Review current and future program plans and corresponding financial requirement related financial implications to: 
    1. ensure alignment with campus needs and directions and 
    2. mitigate unplanned financial outlays.
The NOOC would have the following membership:  Terms for committee members would be staggered, to provide continuity. Term lengths should be between 18 and 24 months; shorter periods are probably insufficient to accumulate adequate background. 

The NOOC would meet several times each year and issue an annual report. The committee should ensure reasonable correspondence between rates and costs. If savings materialize in the future, the campus could capture them when they occur. 

4. Networking and Communications Rate Review 

Given that it has been a number of years since the voice and other communications rates have been reviewed, Information Technology will, in consultation with the NOOC, conduct a thorough review of voice and other communication rates. The review must address the matter of appropriately allocating costs associated with joint voice/data activities. Potential student fee contributions to support expanded and enhanced student network access will be assessed continue to be assessed. See the Student Fee Subcommittee Report. 

ALTERNATIVE RATE STRUCTURES ANALYZED 

The Committee examined many alternative rate structures to fund Network 21 Operation and Maintenance costs. For a variety of reasons, those alternatives were found to be less attractive than the rate structure recommended in this report. A brief description of alternatives and reasons for rejecting them follow. 

Monthly NAM or "Device" Charge for Network Services - This rate would include all the network operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The rate would be calculated by taking the sum of those O&M costs and dividing them by the number of NAMs on campus (or dividing by the number of "devices") and then dividing by 12 to establish the monthly charge. 

The Committee rejected this alternative primarily because the rates would be far too high for departments to manage even with central contributions. In addition, the high rate would unreasonably and unproductively discourage the use of NAMs or "devices" to avoid charges and/or encourage creative manipulations to avoid these network O&M charges that would be counterproductive in terms of effective campus use of network infrastructure. 

Employee Charge- This rate is essentially the approach recommended in the Network 21 Committee's March 18, 1996 Completion and Utilization Plan. The rate is determined by taking all network O&M costs and dividing them by the number of non-student employees. The resulting rate would be used to calculate fees charged to each vice chancellor and dean. 

The campus community members who commented on the March 18 Plan opposed the employee charge because:  
  1. the fee did not provide a means for departments/ users to control costs; 
  2. the fees were too high even with price increase allocations; and  
  3. users would not have incentives to carefully plan the installation of NAMs. The Committee concurred with these observations. 
Central Campus Allocation- All Network O&M costs would be completely covered through central campus funds. Departments would not be charged for any network O&M costs. 

The Committee rejected this alternative because: 
  1. 1) users would have no incentive to economize and 
  2. 2) the amount of central funding required would greatly diminish central administration resources, reducing its ability to respond to other critically important programs and activities on the campus.
Integrated Voice/Data Rates/Fees- The Committee considered many forms of the integrated voice/data rate structures. Some form of integrated rate structure is likely to be needed within three to five years, as the technology for data networks expands to support telephone communications. These rate structures are not now recommended because there is sufficient uncertainty in how integrated voice/data services will be offered that it seems pre-mature to try to anticipate the best rate structure form now. 

Glossary 

NAM - Network Access Module - the wall jack which provides point of connection between an end user device and the network. 

Device - Any computer or peripheral with a network address. This includes printers and computers that are connected to hubs. 

10-Base-T - IEEE802.3 specification, using unshielded twisted pair copper cabling and running at 10 Megabits per second. 

100-Base-T - same as above with 100 Megabit per second. 

BUILDOUT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BACKGROUND 

Charge to the Subcommittee 

Re-examine the funding strategies proposed to build-out the network, including giving careful consideration to the development of another campus-funded capital project to finance the network build-out. The committee should identify the network infrastructure need that would be best met through a new capital project.  

The Committees work shall include: 
  1. Cost estimates, developed by qualified firms, for the various elements of a proposed capital project. 
  2. Careful consideration of the infrastructure and value-added capability. The differentiation may justify centrally funding baseline infrastructure; whereas, campus user funding may have to be provided for those project additions that are determined to be in the "value-added" category.
A survey requesting the number of occupants and buildings requiring connection was distributed by Information Technology (IT). Buildings connected under Network 21, buildings suggested for connection, and those not considered for connection were listed in the survey. On the list, respondents were given the opportunity to remove buildings slated for connection or add buildings not slated for connection. 

A total of 2380 occupants work in 345 buildings needing connection. Most buildings have fewer than 12 occupants and represent 372 departments or units. Because the buildings are farther apart and sparsely populated, the length of backbone and the horizontal wiring and electronics requirements per occupant will likely be greater than for Network 21. 

Philosophy 

Guiding principles to expand Network 21: 
Scope 
Timetable and Phasing  Operating Expenses  Network 21 Phase III 

Preview scenarios for post-backbone technologies. 

Next Steps 

The Preliminary Planning Program schedule appears in Appendix D. 
STUDENT FEE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT BACKGROUND 

The Student Fee Subcommittee was overtaken by events. The Subcommittee merged with an ad hoc committee appointed to respond to an Office of the President Instructional Technology Initiative (a proposal for a new student fee). Copies of the Joint Committee's two responses to UCOP appear in Appendix B. A copy of the "University of California Instructional Technology Initiative 1997-98 Budget" appears in Appendix C The UCOP proposal is slated for review by the Regents at their November meeting. 

ASUCD has agreed to commission its survey unit to conduct a survey of students to ascertain what they would like to have covered by a student fee. The joint committee will participate in the development of the survey instrument. 

The joint committee also reviewed comments, concerning the affect of the fee on graduate students, submitted by Robert Shelton. 

FINDINGS 

Students want access to adequate technology now. The enormity of their appetite could serve as justification to argue for a higher student fee now. We estimate that the campus will require a student fee of $200 to $250 annually (assuming one-third set-aside for financial aid) beginning in 1997-98 just to meet our unfunded operating priorities. A system wide fee that starts out at $40 to $60 in 1996-97 and does not reach $200 for two to three years would not meet our needs. Moreover, we believe that the establishment of a system wide fee, regardless of level, would make it difficult for us to proceed with a campus-based fee. Consequently, we believe that the level of a system wide fee would be the practical short-term limit on the campuses' ability to raise funds for instructional technology through student fees. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

There must be a link between the student fee and direct benefit to the student. Students do not see the benefit of paying a fee for network maintenance. It would be very difficult to sell a student fee on this basis. However, ongoing operation and maintenance is part of the student cost of access to the network. 

Possible uses of funds generated by a student fee include:  Discussion of possible uses of the student fee resulted in agreement that the campus should encourage and facilitate a transition to individual students taking responsibility for providing for their own technology needs, e.g., ISP subscriptions, laptop ownership. 

ASUCD's position is that students should be allowed to determine through a referendum whether or not there should be a fee. 

UCD intends to move forward with its student ee referendum, anticipating a student vote in the winter or spring quarter. The students require the benefits of such a fee as soon as possible. 

Redundant fees would not be feasible. One strategy would be to hold a student referendum on every UC campus and for the State to agree to match the funds generated by the student fee. The obvious down side of a referendum is the consequence of a student rejection of the proposed fee. 

If there is no fee, the UCD campus will consider a fee, or fees, for service. Fees could be instituted for lab use, printing, consulting, network connections, or fees could be used for value added services. The disadvantage of this strategy is that it has the potential of creating "haves" and "have-nots" groups among the students, depending upon an individual's ability to pay for such services. Fees voted in through a referendum or imposed System wide are covered by financial aid. 

CONCLUSION 

"There is no way to predict where or how far technology's evolution will take us, but this is a given: it will be extensive, expensive, and inevitable." After grappling for nearly twelve months with the multi-faceted implications of the technological revolution on this campus, we now know that there are no easy or immediately apparent solutions. In an effort to come to grips with the challenges of funding these real and legitimate costs, the Committee has come to understand and appreciate the need for a simple and flexible rate structure, coupled with continued oversight and analysis. We believe that our recommendations offer a good entry point to a period of transition which of its nature will demand continued analysis of the costs and substantial rethinking of the funding strategies for networking and communications on the UCD campus. 
[UC Davis][Information Technology][Communications Resources][Network 21] 
Administration by: WebKeeper - Editing corrections to: Erin Magers 
Last modified 10/14/97