Network funding model changes
Peggy Huston posted a message today about changes to the campus’ network funding model. The current model, which is based on a per-month, per-connection charge, has a number of signifcant problems. The four main issues with the current model are:
- It fails to accurately track costs. There are a number of reasons for this, but most importantly, wireless networking isn’t included in the cost model at all.
- It encourages undesirable behavior. From a technical perspective, we would recommend that every desktop computer be connected via its own individual wired connection. The per-port installation and monthly costs of the current model encourage departments to use other connection mechanisms, such as commodity hubs or wireless, which provide poorer service and false economy.
- It does not include the cost of upgrading legacy networking. L&S has several buildings which are still using shared 10-megabit networking that was installed in the early 1990s. The current funding model provides no way to replace those old, slow, unreliable networks.
- Subsidies are asymmetrical and insufficiently funded. Each department which existed on June 30, 2000, has a certain number of nodes in its “node bank.” Some departments are node-rich and others are node-poor, for reasons which are historical rather than . Newly-created departments have no node bank and thus no subsidy. But most importantly, the campus has never truly provided enough funding for the node bank, which has forced us to run the network in deficit.
Most universities are moving towards some kind of per-head model for network funding. Charing by head (or by knowledge worker, or FTE or whatever) is attractive for a number of reasons. Primarily, FTE models adapt much better to changes in technology; when our current node-based model was developed, it may have made sense given the technology we were using at the time, but now that wireless is a large and growing part of our network costs, our model no longer maps onto our costs. FTE models can be adjusted and trued up as the technology changes. Also, FTE models tend to be neutral in terms of their effects on user behavior; they don’t provide incentives to engage in bandit networking.
At this point, it looks like the campus is going to move to an FTE model that will include all staff and faculty FTE. It appears that students will not be included in the FTE count.
The biggest issues remaining to be discussed are around subsidy; is how much will be involved, and how it will be implemented. It is clear that L&S departments cannot absorb significant new charges without an offsetting addition of funding; I will continue to advocate on the network funding committee for full subsidy of baseline networking for all faculty and staff. Cal Moore, as a faculty representative on the same committee, is also looking out for the interests of academic departments.
There should be some interesting discussions over the next few months; I will continue to provide updates as I have new information.
