[Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Shelton Waggener
More detail on the network strategy just published.

Regards
Shel




Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor" <[hidden email]>
Date: July 26, 2010 9:00:26 AM PDT
To: "Deans, Department Chairs, Senior Administrative Officers, "<[hidden email]>
Subject: Campus Data Network Strategy

Dear Colleagues:  

In recognition of new network technologies, the changing campus usage of network services, and the inadequacies of the decade old Network Node Bank model, a campus committee was chartered in 2007 to evaluate options for ensuring the continued viability of the campus data network. In January 2009, campus technology leadership, working with the Chair of the Academic Senate Resource Planning Committee, representatives from administrative and academic units, and network professionals, presented a proposal to campus leadership to eliminate the antiquated and administratively expensive per connection model and to move to a per FTE cost allocation methodology. This new model corrects the significant inequities of the Node Bank and enables the investment needed to meet evolving campus needs. The approach is consistent with the strategies of many our counterparts, including Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, and University of Washington as well as many UC campuses including Los Angeles and San Diego. Details of the committee's recommendation can be found at http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/.  

The new Data Network Recharge model became effective July 1, 2010 and contains the following elements:

*The data network will be considered a campus indirect cost. Grant submissions should NOT include network charges.

*Historic Node Bank allocations and per node charges are eliminated.

*Externally funded affiliates and the Residential & Student Service Programs (RSSP) will be charged under special billing agreements based on the per FTE approach. These charges replace previous per connection costs and will appear in their August ledgers. The units subject to special billing will be contacted individually.

*All other units will not see any billing for regular monthly network connections.  

*The $3 data network cost sharing charge on voice lines will remain in effect.

In FY 2010-2011, the central campus will cover approximately $8.6 million of the data network costs. The remaining $1.9 million will be covered by the special billing agreements and the voice line cost sharing described above. This interim approach will allow us to begin immediately expansion of the AirBears service and related networking infrastructure, while coordinating further evaluation of the ongoing resource and financial management model with the Operational Excellence initiative.  

For more information about the new data network strategy, please see:
http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/.

Robert Birgeneau
Chancellor

Frank Yeary
Vice Chancellor

Shelton Waggener
Associate Vice Chancellor & CIO



 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Greg Merritt *
On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Shelton Waggener wrote:

> More detail on the network strategy just published.
>
> Regards
> Shel
>


Hi Shel,

Aside from some additional historical notes, this is basically the  
same text that's in the link posted to Micronet by Natalie of OCIO  
last Friday:

http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/

Off-list, Natalie has asked Michael to confirm whether or not this  
means that for FY10-11 most units on campus will see no new FTE-based  
charges, AND will see their current per-node data charges vanish -- in  
other words, that most units will see a sort of windfall in network  
charges this year while the whole thing is re-evaluated in the context  
of OE.

Shel, can you confirm that this is effectively what is meant by "All  
other units will not see any billing for regular monthly network  
connections"?

Thanks!
-Greg

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Shelton Waggener
Greg,
Correct, units that have previously had all nodes covered by Node Bank  
will see no change, most units (and all campus funded academic units)  
that historically paid for per connections because they didn't have  
sufficient Node Bank allocations, will see a one year financial  
benefit (as you point out, a minor windfall) as they will not have to  
pay for the per connection costs this year.   Externally funded units  
will have special billing agreements based on the new per FTE model.  
Those units will be contacted individually.    As part of the OE work,  
the FTE approach will not be reevaluated, that is in place and the  
Node Bank is no more.  Tuning may occur to the FTE approach but its  
really the question of funding for that model that will be evaluated  
as part of financial resource work in OE.

Shel




On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Greg Merritt wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Shelton Waggener wrote:
>
>> More detail on the network strategy just published.
>>
>> Regards
>> Shel
>>
>
>
> Hi Shel,
>
> Aside from some additional historical notes, this is basically the  
> same text that's in the link posted to Micronet by Natalie of OCIO  
> last Friday:
>
> http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/
>
> Off-list, Natalie has asked Michael to confirm whether or not this  
> means that for FY10-11 most units on campus will see no new FTE-
> based charges, AND will see their current per-node data charges  
> vanish -- in other words, that most units will see a sort of  
> windfall in network charges this year while the whole thing is re-
> evaluated in the context of OE.
>
> Shel, can you confirm that this is effectively what is meant by "All  
> other units will not see any billing for regular monthly network  
> connections"?
>
> Thanks!
> -Greg


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Greg Merritt
Thanks for the info, Shel!

-Greg


On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Shelton Waggener wrote:

> Greg,
> Correct, units that have previously had all nodes covered by Node  
> Bank will see no change, most units (and all campus funded academic  
> units) that historically paid for per connections because they  
> didn't have sufficient Node Bank allocations, will see a one year  
> financial benefit (as you point out, a minor windfall) as they will  
> not have to pay for the per connection costs this year.   Externally  
> funded units will have special billing agreements based on the new  
> per FTE model.  Those units will be contacted individually.    As  
> part of the OE work, the FTE approach will not be reevaluated, that  
> is in place and the Node Bank is no more.  Tuning may occur to the  
> FTE approach but its really the question of funding for that model  
> that will be evaluated as part of financial resource work in OE.
>
> Shel


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Lucy Greco-2
In reply to this post by Shelton Waggener
HELLO:
OUR DEPARTMENTAL MANAGER WANTS TO KNOW WHAT ABOUT TURNING ON AND OFF CURENTLY EXSISTING PORTS. FOR EXAMPLE I ONLY HAVE 32 OF 72 POSABLE PORTS ACTIVE HERE IN THE LAB CAN I TURN THE OTHER PORTS/BOXES/CABLES ON

Lucy Greco
Assistive Technology Specialist
Disabled Student's Program UC Berkeley
(510) 643-7591
http://attlc.berkeley.edu 
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Shelton Waggener
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Greg Merritt; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Greg,
Correct, units that have previously had all nodes covered by Node Bank  
will see no change, most units (and all campus funded academic units)  
that historically paid for per connections because they didn't have  
sufficient Node Bank allocations, will see a one year financial  
benefit (as you point out, a minor windfall) as they will not have to  
pay for the per connection costs this year.   Externally funded units  
will have special billing agreements based on the new per FTE model.  
Those units will be contacted individually.    As part of the OE work,  
the FTE approach will not be reevaluated, that is in place and the  
Node Bank is no more.  Tuning may occur to the FTE approach but its  
really the question of funding for that model that will be evaluated  
as part of financial resource work in OE.

Shel




On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Greg Merritt wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Shelton Waggener wrote:
>
>> More detail on the network strategy just published.
>>
>> Regards
>> Shel
>>
>
>
> Hi Shel,
>
> Aside from some additional historical notes, this is basically the  
> same text that's in the link posted to Micronet by Natalie of OCIO  
> last Friday:
>
> http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/
>
> Off-list, Natalie has asked Michael to confirm whether or not this  
> means that for FY10-11 most units on campus will see no new FTE-
> based charges, AND will see their current per-node data charges  
> vanish -- in other words, that most units will see a sort of  
> windfall in network charges this year while the whole thing is re-
> evaluated in the context of OE.
>
> Shel, can you confirm that this is effectively what is meant by "All  
> other units will not see any billing for regular monthly network  
> connections"?
>
> Thanks!
> -Greg


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Michael R Mundrane
Lucy,

There is no activation charge for enabling a port behind an existing
drop in the new Data Network Recharge.  If a drop needs to be run, it
will be charged out as time and materials.  You can turn on or off ports
without incurring additional cost, but we would ask that you refrain
from doing this unless you actually have something to plug into them the
jack.  IST will be working on processes to identify enabled, but unused,
ports for deactivation so that we do not have to operate and maintain
infrastructure behind unused wall jacks.

Regards,

Michael

On 7/26/10 12:25 PM, Lucy Greco wrote:

> HELLO:
> OUR DEPARTMENTAL MANAGER WANTS TO KNOW WHAT ABOUT TURNING ON AND OFF CURENTLY EXSISTING PORTS. FOR EXAMPLE I ONLY HAVE 32 OF 72 POSABLE PORTS ACTIVE HERE IN THE LAB CAN I TURN THE OTHER PORTS/BOXES/CABLES ON
>
> Lucy Greco
> Assistive Technology Specialist
> Disabled Student's Program UC Berkeley
> (510) 643-7591
> http://attlc.berkeley.edu
> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Shelton Waggener
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 9:40 AM
> To: Greg Merritt; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy
>
> Greg,
> Correct, units that have previously had all nodes covered by Node Bank
> will see no change, most units (and all campus funded academic units)
> that historically paid for per connections because they didn't have
> sufficient Node Bank allocations, will see a one year financial
> benefit (as you point out, a minor windfall) as they will not have to
> pay for the per connection costs this year.   Externally funded units
> will have special billing agreements based on the new per FTE model.
> Those units will be contacted individually.    As part of the OE work,
> the FTE approach will not be reevaluated, that is in place and the
> Node Bank is no more.  Tuning may occur to the FTE approach but its
> really the question of funding for that model that will be evaluated
> as part of financial resource work in OE.
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Greg Merritt wrote:
>
>    
>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Shelton Waggener wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> More detail on the network strategy just published.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Shel
>>>
>>>        
>>
>> Hi Shel,
>>
>> Aside from some additional historical notes, this is basically the
>> same text that's in the link posted to Micronet by Natalie of OCIO
>> last Friday:
>>
>> http://cio.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/
>>
>> Off-list, Natalie has asked Michael to confirm whether or not this
>> means that for FY10-11 most units on campus will see no new FTE-
>> based charges, AND will see their current per-node data charges
>> vanish -- in other words, that most units will see a sort of
>> windfall in network charges this year while the whole thing is re-
>> evaluated in the context of OE.
>>
>> Shel, can you confirm that this is effectively what is meant by "All
>> other units will not see any billing for regular monthly network
>> connections"?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Greg
>>      
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:
>
> To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
>
> http://micronet.berkeley.edu
>
> Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:
>
> To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
>
> http://micronet.berkeley.edu
>
> Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
>    

--
Dr. Michael R Mundrane
Deputy Chief Information Officer
University of California, Berkeley

Phone: 510.642.6365    Cell: 510.289.8661    Fax: 510.643.5385


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Michael Sinatra
In reply to this post by Shelton Waggener
On 07/26/10 09:12, Shelton Waggener wrote:

> More detail on the network strategy just published.
>
> Regards
> Shel
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: July 26, 2010 9:00:26 AM PDT
>> To: "Deans, Department Chairs, Senior Administrative Officers,
>> "<[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Campus Data Network Strategy
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> In recognition of new network technologies, the changing campus usage
>> of network services, and the inadequacies of the decade old Network
>> Node Bank model, a campus committee was chartered in 2007 to evaluate
>> options for ensuring the continued viability of the campus data
>> network. In January 2009, campus technology leadership, working with
>> the Chair of the Academic Senate Resource Planning Committee,
>> representatives from administrative and academic units, and network
>> professionals, presented a proposal to campus leadership to eliminate
>> the antiquated and administratively expensive per connection model and
>> to move to a per FTE cost allocation methodology. This new model
>> corrects the significant inequities of the Node Bank and enables the
>> investment needed to meet evolving campus needs. The approach is
>> consistent with the strategies of many our counterparts, including
>> Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, and University of
>> Washington as well as many UC campuses including Los Angeles and San
>> Diego.

It looks like University of Michigan has a similar model, and they have
some interesting formulae for accounting for student use.  (It's not
really an FTE model as much as it is a "people who use the network" model.)

http://www.itcom.itd.umich.edu/backbone/pricedtl.html

michael

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Jonathan Loran

The UM charge model and user type weighting is certainly and interesting approach, but one core assumption they imply, is that network saturation is a diminishing factor, that large consumers of bandwidth won't pay extra because overall capacity will handle peak loads.  Thus metering becomes irrelevant, more or less.  Michael, can we make that same assumption at UCB?

Jon

On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote:

On 07/26/10 09:12, Shelton Waggener wrote:
More detail on the network strategy just published.

Regards
Shel




Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor" <[hidden email]>
Date: July 26, 2010 9:00:26 AM PDT
To: "Deans, Department Chairs, Senior Administrative Officers,
"<[hidden email]>
Subject: Campus Data Network Strategy

Dear Colleagues:

In recognition of new network technologies, the changing campus usage
of network services, and the inadequacies of the decade old Network
Node Bank model, a campus committee was chartered in 2007 to evaluate
options for ensuring the continued viability of the campus data
network. In January 2009, campus technology leadership, working with
the Chair of the Academic Senate Resource Planning Committee,
representatives from administrative and academic units, and network
professionals, presented a proposal to campus leadership to eliminate
the antiquated and administratively expensive per connection model and
to move to a per FTE cost allocation methodology. This new model
corrects the significant inequities of the Node Bank and enables the
investment needed to meet evolving campus needs. The approach is
consistent with the strategies of many our counterparts, including
Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, and University of
Washington as well as many UC campuses including Los Angeles and San
Diego.

It looks like University of Michigan has a similar model, and they have
some interesting formulae for accounting for student use.  (It's not
really an FTE model as much as it is a "people who use the network" model.)

http://www.itcom.itd.umich.edu/backbone/pricedtl.html

michael


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.



-     _____/     _____/      /           - Jonathan Loran -           -
-    /          /           /                IT Manager               -
-  _____  /   _____  /     /     Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley
-        /          /     /      (510) 643-5146 [hidden email]
- ______/    ______/    ______/           AST:7731^29u18e3
                                 




 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Michael Sinatra
On 07/30/10 00:00, Jonathan Loran wrote:
>
> The UM charge model and user type weighting is certainly and
> interesting approach, but one core assumption they imply, is that
> network saturation is a diminishing factor, that large consumers of
> bandwidth won't pay extra because overall capacity will handle peak
> loads.  Thus metering becomes irrelevant, more or less.  Michael, can
> we make that same assumption at UCB?

Hi Jon:

I don't believe that such a core assumption is implied by either model,
and it occurs to me that costs associated with a consistent and
significantly heavy bandwidth user might be handled "out-of-model," but
I will let Michael Mundrane or Shel answer that.  Unlike me, they
actually know something about our model.  I will make the general
comment that just because a funding model doesn't internalize a cost
doesn't mean they assume it away.  The only assumption that I see is
that such issues will tend to be few and far-between, but again, Shel
and Michael are better versed than I on this topic.

Note that the previous node bank model didn't internalize usage either.

michael


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Jonathan Loran

Michael,

I think you're right, upgrades as needed, are paid outside the model.  Anyway, I just find it interesting, in that there's diminishing returns in fairness on how any recharge is constructed vs. the complexity trying to catch all of the use cases. I've been through that exercise myself, and know how hard it is.  I'm sure Michael and Shel will do a good job figuring this out.  And I'm certainly happy to see the node bank regime put to rest.

Jon

On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote:

On 07/30/10 00:00, Jonathan Loran wrote:

The UM charge model and user type weighting is certainly and
interesting approach, but one core assumption they imply, is that
network saturation is a diminishing factor, that large consumers of
bandwidth won't pay extra because overall capacity will handle peak
loads.  Thus metering becomes irrelevant, more or less.  Michael, can
we make that same assumption at UCB?

Hi Jon:

I don't believe that such a core assumption is implied by either model, and it occurs to me that costs associated with a consistent and significantly heavy bandwidth user might be handled "out-of-model," but I will let Michael Mundrane or Shel answer that.  Unlike me, they actually know something about our model.  I will make the general comment that just because a funding model doesn't internalize a cost doesn't mean they assume it away.  The only assumption that I see is that such issues will tend to be few and far-between, but again, Shel and Michael are better versed than I on this topic.

Note that the previous node bank model didn't internalize usage either.

michael




-     _____/     _____/      /           - Jonathan Loran -           -
-    /          /           /                IT Manager               -
-  _____  /   _____  /     /     Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley
-        /          /     /      (510) 643-5146 [hidden email]
- ______/    ______/    ______/           AST:7731^29u18e3
                                 




 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Greg Merritt

> there's diminishing returns in fairness on how any recharge is  
> constructed vs. the complexity trying to catch all of the use cases.


Notice that, regardless of your opinion of the new UCB network funding  
model, "recharge" is a misnomer.

Recharge is more properly used to describe a rate that is applied to  
an amount of service.  Use more service?  Pay more.  Use less?  Pay  
less.  Your bill is scaled by the recharge rate and the amount you use.

The new network model does not work this way.  It is simply a fee, not  
a rate based on usage in any sense.

Curiously, it is a mandated cost that units cannot manage -- aside  
from reducing staff FTE, which would be an absurd way to "manage"  
network costs.  There's no way for a unit to do things more  
efficiently in an effort to reduce costs in this area; they'll just be  
stuck with the flat fee based on headcount.

Units will simply have to have faith that the folks who define the  
level of service required for "common good" -- and therefore determine  
the monthly dollar fee per FTE -- have each and every particular  
unit's cost-cutting interests at heart when deciding the uniform  
campus-wide level of service.

For further reading about recharges at UCB, see the following  
publication from the Controller's Office:

http://controller.berkeley.edu/recharge/Policies/Rechargepolicy.pdf

-Greg

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Jonathan Loran

Hi Greg,

I stand corrected on calling the network fee a recharge.  It's a valid distinction between the two.  

W/R to having faith that the network model is fair, transparency in how the rate is calculated will go a long way towards that.  Having said this, please don't get me wrong: I fully expect the rate calculation will fair and take into account everyones best interest.

Thanks,

Jon

On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Greg Merritt wrote:


there's diminishing returns in fairness on how any recharge is  
constructed vs. the complexity trying to catch all of the use cases.


Notice that, regardless of your opinion of the new UCB network funding  
model, "recharge" is a misnomer.

Recharge is more properly used to describe a rate that is applied to  
an amount of service.  Use more service?  Pay more.  Use less?  Pay  
less.  Your bill is scaled by the recharge rate and the amount you use.

The new network model does not work this way.  It is simply a fee, not  
a rate based on usage in any sense.

Curiously, it is a mandated cost that units cannot manage -- aside  
from reducing staff FTE, which would be an absurd way to "manage"  
network costs.  There's no way for a unit to do things more  
efficiently in an effort to reduce costs in this area; they'll just be  
stuck with the flat fee based on headcount.

Units will simply have to have faith that the folks who define the  
level of service required for "common good" -- and therefore determine  
the monthly dollar fee per FTE -- have each and every particular  
unit's cost-cutting interests at heart when deciding the uniform  
campus-wide level of service.

For further reading about recharges at UCB, see the following  
publication from the Controller's Office:

http://controller.berkeley.edu/recharge/Policies/Rechargepolicy.pdf

-Greg


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.



-     _____/     _____/      /           - Jonathan Loran -           -
-    /          /           /                IT Manager               -
-  _____  /   _____  /     /     Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley
-        /          /     /      (510) 643-5146 [hidden email]
- ______/    ______/    ______/           AST:7731^29u18e3
                                 




 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Greg Merritt
> I stand corrected on calling the network fee a recharge.  It's a  
> valid distinction between the two.


Oh!  I understand why you would -- that's how it's been presented to  
campus:

http://comp-resources.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/

However, "recharge" is a very specifically-defined word at UCB -- just  
ask John Ellis.  Given my understanding of recharge here on campus, I  
simply do not see how this funding model fits under that rubric.

-Greg

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Michael R Mundrane
All,

While there were quite a few financial models considered and evaluated,
we selected one that was associated with opportunity and not packets or
nodes.  I will try to outline some of the details here.

For the Data Network Recharge (DNR) model, a baseline opportunity was
tied to a full time faculty or staff member.  They represent what we
would term a "Full Service Equivalent (FSE)."  In this way, one FTE is
equal to one FSE.  Half an FTE is equal to half in FSE.

Costs for the data network itself are split into five distinct elements.

     Core - main central network elements
     Riser - building entry, closets and fiber
     Station - twisted pair station cabling
     Security - monitoring and response
     Internet - external connectivity

For each specific service element, we identify an opportunity basis (the
aggregate FSE for that particular element) and use it to then assign the
full element cost back to the community.  This is the same way that  
other recharge rates are calculated.  The cost basis is the aggregate
cost for the element and the consumption basis is the aggregate
opportunity identified via FSE.

The way we calculated students was to tie them back to an FSE.  We began
with a logic argument that said a resident student was comparable to a
full time faculty or staff and hence represented one FSE.  However, we
also recognized that a resident student had opportunity associated with
their role as a resident and also with their role as a student.  We
performed a scaling exercise that suggested that the student portion of
a resident student was about 15% and the resident portion of a resident
student was about 85% of the total.  This allowed us to assign 0.85 FSE
to each resident and 0.15 FSE to each student.  These were totaled and
included in the opportunity basis for each appropriate element.

Regards,

Michael.


On 7/30/10 4:30 PM, Greg Merritt wrote:

>> I stand corrected on calling the network fee a recharge.  It's a
>> valid distinction between the two.
>>      
>
> Oh!  I understand why you would -- that's how it's been presented to
> campus:
>
> http://comp-resources.berkeley.edu/datanetwork/
>
> However, "recharge" is a very specifically-defined word at UCB -- just
> ask John Ellis.  Given my understanding of recharge here on campus, I
> simply do not see how this funding model fits under that rubric.
>
> -Greg
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:
>
> To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:
>
> http://micronet.berkeley.edu
>
> Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
>    

--
Dr. Michael R Mundrane
Deputy Chief Information Officer
University of California, Berkeley

Phone: 510.642.6365    Cell: 510.289.8661    Fax: 510.643.5385


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Tom Holub
In reply to this post by Greg Merritt
On 7/30/10 1:06 PM, Greg Merritt wrote:

>
> Curiously, it is a mandated cost that units cannot manage -- aside
> from reducing staff FTE, which would be an absurd way to "manage"
> network costs.  There's no way for a unit to do things more
> efficiently in an effort to reduce costs in this area; they'll just be
> stuck with the flat fee based on headcount.
>
> Units will simply have to have faith that the folks who define the
> level of service required for "common good" -- and therefore determine
> the monthly dollar fee per FTE -- have each and every particular
> unit's cost-cutting interests at heart when deciding the uniform
> campus-wide level of service.

I think the question of whether the network funding model is a recharge
or not is one of semantics, but I have an important point to make here
which is at the core of Operational Excellence:

********
It is not in the interests of the campus for every unit to have
decision-making authority over every possible cost.
********

The campus would not be better off if every department got to choose
whether to pay for electricity, water, and sewer service.  If we want
network service to be ubiquitous--and every piece of data we have
implies that we do--then we can't let each department choose whether to
get network service or not.  IT on campus is worse off for having people
installing commodity switches and routers to avoid node-based network
charges; those kinds of local "optimizations" have increased the real
costs of providing network service on campus.  There are dozens of
campus recharges for IT-related services which undermine our ability to
accomplish our IT-related goals, because many recharge models (including
the node bank model) encourage behaviors fundamentally at odds with
institutional interests.

The business model of charging for network on a per-FTE basis (or
per-FSE or head count or whatever) is therefore completely reasonable.
Everyone on campus should have a baseline level of network service, and
we also want ubiquitous in-building AirBears.  I don't think it makes
any sense for a student to have to walk into a building and not have
access to AirBears there, simply because the department who would have
had to pay for it decided they didn't want to.

If OE is a success (I'm not sure what the Vegas line is on that), many
of the decisions which currently rest in departmental hands will move up
the ladder to where they are more likely to align with institutional
priorities.


So the problem with the DNR project is not the business model.  The
problem with the DNR project is that it started with a reasonable
business model, but never connected the business model with the actual
funding available, and didn't assess the financial impact of
implementing the business model.  DNR is a business model, not a funding
model, because the funding for it has not been identified.

There needs to be a funding mechanism for common goods on campus.  The
tricky part is figuring out where the money will come from.

--
Tom Holub ([hidden email], 510-642-9069)
Director of Computing, College of Letters & Science
101.D Durant Hall1
<http://LS.berkeley.edu/lscr/>

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Bill Clark

> I think the question of whether the network funding model
> is a recharge or not is one of semantics,

I would be remiss in my duties as the husband of a linguist if I didn't
point out that "semantics" really just means "the study of meaning" and
that calling something a question of semantics isn't actually as
dismissive (or disarming) as people often taken it to be.  That said, I
think the "pointless word games" use of the term "semantics" is probably
by far the more common one, and so the semantics of "semantics" are far
from settled.

...and don't even get me started on the misuse of the perfectly good term
"metaphysics" by practitioners of the physical sciences.

-Bill Clark


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Michael Sinatra
On 08/02/10 16:31, Bill Clark wrote:

>
>> I think the question of whether the network funding model
>> is a recharge or not is one of semantics,
>
> I would be remiss in my duties as the husband of a linguist if I didn't
> point out that "semantics" really just means "the study of meaning" and
> that calling something a question of semantics isn't actually as
> dismissive (or disarming) as people often taken it to be.  That said, I
> think the "pointless word games" use of the term "semantics" is probably
> by far the more common one, and so the semantics of "semantics" are far
> from settled.
>
> ...and don't even get me started on the misuse of the perfectly good term
> "metaphysics" by practitioners of the physical sciences.

Then I suppose you don't want to discuss the horrible misuses of
"methodology" (the STUDY of methods, not the methods themselves) or the
way leverage is used as a verb.  (One would think that
post-Financial-Crisis, we would have realized that leverage often
indicates something bad; to say "let's leverage IST services" really
means "let's borrow against some future value of IST services *which we
assume to be greater than* the current value of the borrowing plus all
future interest on the loan."  It's more of a synonym for rampant
speculation and the stuff bubbles are made of--or even gambling--than it
is for something more benign like "make use of" or even "exploit.")

michael

PS. It's often important to remind ourselves that we *do* work at a
University and that we should avoid these and other linguistic
atrocities such as "webinar."


 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Micronet] Fwd: Campus Data Network Strategy

Tom Holub
On 8/2/10 4:54 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote:

> On 08/02/10 16:31, Bill Clark wrote:
>>
>>> I think the question of whether the network funding model
>>> is a recharge or not is one of semantics,
>>
>> I would be remiss in my duties as the husband of a linguist if I didn't
>> point out that "semantics" really just means "the study of meaning" and
>> that calling something a question of semantics isn't actually as
>> dismissive (or disarming) as people often taken it to be. That said, I
>> think the "pointless word games" use of the term "semantics" is probably
>> by far the more common one, and so the semantics of "semantics" are far
>> from settled.
>>
>> ...and don't even get me started on the misuse of the perfectly good term
>> "metaphysics" by practitioners of the physical sciences.
>
> Then I suppose you don't want to discuss the horrible misuses of
> "methodology" (the STUDY of methods, not the methods themselves) or the
> way leverage is used as a verb. (One would think that
> post-Financial-Crisis, we would have realized that leverage often
> indicates something bad; to say "let's leverage IST services" really
> means "let's borrow against some future value of IST services *which we
> assume to be greater than* the current value of the borrowing plus all
> future interest on the loan." It's more of a synonym for rampant
> speculation and the stuff bubbles are made of--or even gambling--than it
> is for something more benign like "make use of" or even "exploit.")
>
> michael
>
> PS. It's often important to remind ourselves that we *do* work at a
> University and that we should avoid these and other linguistic
> atrocities such as "webinar."

Actually, linguists tend to be more descriptive than prescriptive about
language; it's the English profs who might have a beef with
appropriation of usage.

"webinar" is just an awful word aesthetically, but in terms of
linguistics is it really any worse than "blog"?  "blog" seems much more
acceptable because it's not so ugly.

[Useless trivia: "seminar" comes from the Latin for "seed plot"; the
word is describing the scattering of knowledge based on a planting
metaphor.  "web plot" makes no sense.]

This reminds me of a weekend I spent with a bunch of unicycle geeks, one
of whom at one point groaned, "Please, no more semantic arguments!"  To
which the obvious response was, "OK...but what exactly do you mean by that?"

--
Tom Holub ([hidden email], 510-642-9069)
Director of Computing, College of Letters & Science
101.D Durant Hall1
<http://LS.berkeley.edu/lscr/>

 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following was automatically added to this message by the list server:

To learn more about Micronet, including how to subscribe to or unsubscribe from its mailing list and how to find out about upcoming meetings, please visit the Micronet Web site:

http://micronet.berkeley.edu

Messages you send to this mailing list are public and world-viewable, and the list's archives can be browsed and searched on the Internet.  This means these messages can be viewed by (among others) your bosses, prospective employers, and people who have known you in the past.