That sounds extremely painful. I cannot imagine deploying a solution that 97+% of laptops cannot use directly.
-- Hunter Fuller OIT Sent from my phone. On May 13, 2015 8:25 AM, "Brian Helman" <bhel...@salemstate.edu> wrote: > I have a little more information to provide now. I absolutely > appreciate that it will be extremely tempting to respond with biased > opinions. I don’t think there is anything that can be said that I haven’t > already expressed to my team. However, that will not help me write up my > recommendation. So that being said, feel free to chime in with tangible > reasons to do this or not… > > > > Apparently, our president heard that some schools are investigating > purchasing bulk data contracts with mobile (“cellular”) carriers for data. > The idea is, we would stop providing 802.11g/n/ac wireless in the residence > halls and instead provide students with the abilities to register their > devices with the mobile carrier to use 4G/LTE data. The University will > pay for this. > > > > Pros: > > No wireless (802.11) to purchase, support > > Reduced POE requirements on switches > > No wireless driver/configuration mismatches problems to support > > > > Cons: > > Is mobile wireless signal available everywhere inside the buildings? > Costs to improve signal. > > What speeds are available (what range of speeds)? Is it by user or > aggregate? > > How is congestion handled? > > What devices – mobile phones only? Hotspots to provide access to > non-cellular devices (e.g wifi-only tablets; laptops) > > More Ethernet ports needed for devices that previously depended on wireless > > What provider(s)? > > Support shifted from “device to institutional wifi” to “device to myfi” or > “devide to 3rd party” > > Cost per user, per GB? > > > > What else? > > > > If you know of any institutions who have attempted this (I have heard MIT > is looking at it, but we aren’t MIT), please let me know. > > > > By the way, the background here is .. we installed our 802.11n network ~5 > years ago and haven’t had any commitment to fund it since. So now we are > trying to deal with capacity (BYOD) issues that didn’t exist 5 years ago > while upgrading to 11ac. Of course, it’s not a 1:1 swap of equipment since > we’d be migrating from 2.4GHz to 2.4+5GHz. That puts the costs for > forklift upgrades pretty high (did I mention I’ve been unsuccessfully > asking for funding for 3 years?). > > > > I believe this can all best be summarized with a simple .. Oy. > > > > -Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Jerkan, Kristijan > *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:34 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) > service, or not to provide (wireless) service... > > > > As a public institution in the EDU sector we always had a byod policy in > our dorm network, specifically including „anything You want to connect to > the port in Your room“. > > > > Parameters: > > -5k+ dorm rooms (1.8k the largest segment, 20 the smallest) > > -120km radius > > -at least one (mostly two) RJ45 port per room (cat5-7 to the switch, fiber > afterwards) > > -10/100MBit ports (deliberatly did not go for 1GBit at the edge) > > -no additional accounting, just dhcp with opt82 > > -public ips behind reflexive acl (no shaping, etc.) > > -uplink via the federal research network > > -service neutral (whoever wants to can use a DSL provider also/instead and > may use the inhouse cable from their basement to their room for it) > > -one service number (fixed number, forwarded to five cellphones – whoever > picks up first wins) > > -managed by ~10 students (pro bono, but with a couple of incentives) > > > > That beeing said, here are a few points why this works for us and is not > generally applicable: > > -people have to work together to archive common goals (state, local, > university and dorm administration – technical and administrative staff) > > -it does not take much to put a service neutral CAT cable into every room > while they are beeing built/renovated instead of a cheaper telephone cable, > but it does take a joint effort and common goals > > -to every dorm room there is a rent/contract, so we know who is „behind“ > it and can make one specific person liable (opt82) > > -there are only single-bed rooms (this is a cultural thing and different > than in the US, I guess noone around here would even rent a shared room) > > -almost no dorms are adjacent to the classrooms/labs (seamless wireless > coverage/services wouldn’t be possible anyway) > > -in order to find enough students (5 for the core team) who will do the > occasionally needed actual work without payment, a balance between demands > and incentives is important > > > > Effect: > > -very low capex and extremly low opex for the dorm network [numbers only > off list] > > -very limited support calls (maybe 2/week; maybe 10-20 during the > move-in-phase, mostly students from the states asking about the > non-existant login/pw) > > -no need to worry about deprication charges or every new feature > (regarding wireless: ABG to N to AC; MIMO, fequency analysis chipsets; > 2.4ghz to 5ghz, wave2) > > -the least administrative overhead possible > > -none of the students in our networking team had problems finding jobs > after they left (no trouble finding volunteers, very long participation > period) > > -scalabe system; got us from ~1.2k rooms (back in ’99) within a 1km radius > to 5k+ (today) in a 120km radius > > -effective support answers („Yes, You can also attach every AP You want to > You port… No, don’t worry, if You are able to understand Your class > reading, You will also understand vendor X’s manual…) > > -no secondary discussions (health, etc.) > > -plug&play experience for students > > -ability to consolidate our attention to more interesting projects; we > still provide wireless (eduroam), but only in common areas away from the > rooms (ALU/Aruba 6000, now 7210, anything between 124s and 270s except the > cloud based APs) > > -over the years we had some (small and larger) dorms outsourced to > different (small and large) companies who provided full wireless-only > coverage, standard management as well as forbidden private wireless, but as > our own model proved technically resiliant and cost-effective time and > again, our external partners solutions didn‘t > > > > Basically our setup could be exactly what Your administrative staff/board > is aiming for. > > My personal message to them would be to first and foremost take an honest > look at how and why things are the way they are. > > If they just argue out of a mix of intuition and auserity, their good > intentions will cause a fail (probably utterly and completely, like many > others before). > > It is possible to run a cost effective plug&play network, with a high > satisfaction rate amoung students (EDU did that long before the BYOD > marketing hype). But that requires a high level of cooperation (belivers, > ideally who themselves lived in dorms and remember how student life can > be), common goals, success in overcoming obstacles and also constant > vigilance and re-evaluation. > > From an administrative and oversight point of view this is a lot more and > complex work than finding, distributing and approving funds. For various > reasons it is also not always something that can be implemented everywhere > or sustained for a meaningful period of time. Therefore it is often better > to honestly deal with the geographic/personal/political reality and to > solve the technical problem with money. > > Even if Your board would want to, a change towards a system like ours > takes time. Your institution should definetly not run on an obsolete > wireless infrastructure during that periode (and wear out its staff and > cause stir among students in the process). > > Hope this helps to balance the biased view. ;-) > > > > > > Regards, > > Kris > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *Im Auftrag von *Brian Helman > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 1. Mai 2015 17:23 > *An:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Betreff:* [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to > provide (wireless) service... > > > > A few weeks ago we made a pitch for funding to upgrade our res halls to > 802.11ac. This request for funding has had an unforeseen effect. I’m not > being asked to investigate NOT providing wireless networking in our res > halls. Here are the options, as it has been described to me: > > > > -No institutional wireless. Let the students bring in their own AP’s > > -Some kind of managed service (wireless as a service) with 802.11 > > -Some kind of institutionally owned/leased mobile wireless (e.g we provide > our own 4G) > > -Hybrid > > -Continue with 802.11n 2.4GHz and fill in holes as they pop up > > > > I’m not going to put my thoughts up here just yet. These are the > options/thoughts as presented by the levels above me. > > > > Let the discussion begin…. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________ > *Brian Helman, M.Ed *|* Director, ITS/Networking Services | *(: *978.542.7272 > <978.542.7272>* > > *Salem State University, 352 Lafayette St., Salem Massachusetts 01970* > > *GPS: 42.502129, -70.894779* > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
