Wi-Fi is very much equivalent to toilet facilities; students expect it is there.
You way want to add to the list the potential problem after the deal with the LTE-provider ends: if you select another LTE-provider, the nightmare of swapping all SIMs and re-registering the new ones starts. -Frans Lee H Badman schreef op 14/05/15 om 14:49: > > Chuck- you might want to add the question “Do you assume that we have > excellent Wi-Fi connectivity?” at the top of the list. For students > that grew up wireless, my own experience shows that this very much is > the assumption. They are so used to it at home they don’t give it > much thought- until it sucks. > > > > -Lee > > > > Lee Badman > > Wireless/Network Architect > > ITS, Syracuse University > > 315.443.3003 > > (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) > > > > *From:*The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Chuck Enfield > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:48 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) > service, or not to provide (wireless) service... > > > > Thanks John. FWIW, your characterization matches my experience in re > the opinions of people in a position to know. But every time I've > been able to ask the basis for that opinion the evidence is either > anecdotal or it's based on a survey of their peers. This reeks of > groupthink. > > I have my own anecdotal evidence, no more reliable than others of > course, that suggest connectivity isn't high on the priority list of > prospective students. When presented with the opportunity, I've asked > some of our Lion Ambassadors, who give campus tours to prospective > students, what kind of questions they get about wireless and > networking. All four that I've asked said they don't get general > questions about availability or performance. They reported being > asked about how to access the network during the tour, but that > question was more likely to come from a parent than an applicant. > > I think this is a very important question, but I don't have the > resources to pursue the answer myself. I eagerly await credible > evidence one way or the other. > > Chuck > > On May 13, 2015 9:06 PM, Jon Young <j...@network-plumbers.com > <mailto:j...@network-plumbers.com>> wrote: > > > > Chuck, > > That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to > support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by > consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position > to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res > Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential > institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for > those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically > disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is > so to another forum. > > > > As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I > am unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this > area so it is accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on > anecdotal (but consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad > swath of institutions. Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions > of the those institutional personnel, not direct student surveys. > > > > That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder > opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for > effective wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a > strong tendency to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers > are doing and the ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this. > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > Vantage Technology Consulting Group > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Enfield <chu...@psu.edu > <mailto:chu...@psu.edu>> wrote: > > John, I’ve often heard it said that wireless is important to > recruiting and retention, but I’ve yet to find any solid > foundation for the claim. This may be because those search terms > in Google return so much unrelated information that the good data > is hard to find, or it could be that the claim is tenuous. Can > you point us to any sources to substantiate it? I’m skeptical, > but open to evidence. It would definitely change the way I think > about our wireless services in relation to business needs. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chuck Enfield > > Manager, Wireless Systems & Engineering > > Telecommunications & Networking Services > > The Pennsylvania State University > > 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 > > ph: 814.863.8715 <tel:814.863.8715> > > fx: 814.865.3988 <tel:814.865.3988> > > > > *From:*The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Jon Young > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:43 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide > (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... > > > > We consult with many higher-ed institutions and the question your > President has posed about buying bulk data is a real one that many > institutions have looked into. We are frequently asked this > question (same question for cellular when it is time to replace > the phone system) when we assist schools with the network and WiFi > strategy so I can tell you that if you define the "some schools > are investigating" this by asking their independent consultants, > that is true. If you are asking if it is remotely viable and if > anyone is seriously pursuing it beyond asking the question, the > answer as you expect is a resounding "no" for all the reasons > others have articulated on this thread. > > > > That said, a couple of things to note: > > Many schools have chosen to successfully outsource their resnet > including wireless (see the recent resnet report from ACUTA). > That is sometimes by letting the local cable company come in and > offer service in the residence halls and sometimes by outsourcing > resnet to a company like Apogee. There are pros and cons to > insourcing vs outsourcing resnet but I think it is reasonable to > consider if that is the right choice for your institution. > > > > Of I think larger importance to your President - the quality of > wireless internet is a key component of student recruitment and > retention at many institutions. At the request of one Ivy, I even > wrote an internal white paper justifying ubiquitous WiFi across > campus based primarily on student recruitment and retention. I > suggest speaking with your admissions group and getting their > thoughts on the importance of high-quality wireless internet > (define that how you like) in the res halls and the rest of campus. > > > > Good luck, > > Jon Young > > Vantage Technology Consulting Group. > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Brian Helman > <bhel...@salemstate.edu <mailto: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 3^rd 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 > <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 > <mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) > service, or not to provide (wireless) service... > > > > As a public institution in the EDU sector we always had a byod > policy in our dorm network, specifically including „anything You > want to connect to the port in Your room“. > > > > Parameters: > > -5k+ dorm rooms (1.8k the largest segment, 20 the smallest) > > -120km radius > > -at least one (mostly two) RJ45 port per room (cat5-7 to the > switch, fiber afterwards) > > -10/100MBit ports (deliberatly did not go for 1GBit at the edge) > > -no additional accounting, just dhcp with opt82 > > -public ips behind reflexive acl (no shaping, etc.) > > -uplink via the federal research network > > -service neutral (whoever wants to can use a DSL provider > also/instead and may use the inhouse cable from their basement to > their room for it) > > -one service number (fixed number, forwarded to five cellphones – > whoever picks up first wins) > > -managed by ~10 students (pro bono, but with a couple of incentives) > > > > That beeing said, here are a few points why this works for us and > is not generally applicable: > > -people have to work together to archive common goals (state, > local, university and dorm administration – technical and > administrative staff) > > -it does not take much to put a service neutral CAT cable into > every room while they are beeing built/renovated instead of a > cheaper telephone cable, but it does take a joint effort and > common goals > > -to every dorm room there is a rent/contract, so we know who is > „behind“ it and can make one specific person liable (opt82) > > -there are only single-bed rooms (this is a cultural thing and > different than in the US, I guess noone around here would even > rent a shared room) > > -almost no dorms are adjacent to the classrooms/labs (seamless > wireless coverage/services wouldn’t be possible anyway) > > -in order to find enough students (5 for the core team) who will > do the occasionally needed actual work without payment, a balance > between demands and incentives is important > > > > Effect: > > -very low capex and extremly low opex for the dorm network > [numbers only off list] > > -very limited support calls (maybe 2/week; maybe 10-20 during the > move-in-phase, mostly students from the states asking about the > non-existant login/pw) > > -no need to worry about deprication charges or every new feature > (regarding wireless: ABG to N to AC; MIMO, fequency analysis > chipsets; 2.4ghz to 5ghz, wave2) > > -the least administrative overhead possible > > -none of the students in our networking team had problems finding > jobs after they left (no trouble finding volunteers, very long > participation period) > > -scalabe system; got us from ~1.2k rooms (back in ’99) within a > 1km radius to 5k+ (today) in a 120km radius > > -effective support answers („Yes, You can also attach every AP You > want to You port… No, don’t worry, if You are able to understand > Your class reading, You will also understand vendor X’s manual…) > > -no secondary discussions (health, etc.) > > -plug&play experience for students > > -ability to consolidate our attention to more interesting > projects; we still provide wireless (eduroam), but only in common > areas away from the rooms (ALU/Aruba 6000, now 7210, anything > between 124s and 270s except the cloud based APs) > > -over the years we had some (small and larger) dorms outsourced to > different (small and large) companies who provided full > wireless-only coverage, standard management as well as forbidden > private wireless, but as our own model proved technically > resiliant and cost-effective time and again, our external partners > solutions didn‘t > > > > Basically our setup could be exactly what Your administrative > staff/board is aiming for. > > My personal message to them would be to first and foremost take an > honest look at how and why things are the way they are. > > If they just argue out of a mix of intuition and auserity, their > good intentions will cause a fail (probably utterly and > completely, like many others before). > > It is possible to run a cost effective plug&play network, with a > high satisfaction rate amoung students (EDU did that long before > the BYOD marketing hype). But that requires a high level of > cooperation (belivers, ideally who themselves lived in dorms and > remember how student life can be), common goals, success in > overcoming obstacles and also constant vigilance and re-evaluation. > > From an administrative and oversight point of view this is a lot > more and complex work than finding, distributing and approving > funds. For various reasons it is also not always something that > can be implemented everywhere or sustained for a meaningful period > of time. Therefore it is often better to honestly deal with the > geographic/personal/political reality and to solve the technical > problem with money. > > Even if Your board would want to, a change towards a system like > ours takes time. Your institution should definetly not run on an > obsolete wireless infrastructure during that periode (and wear out > its staff and cause stir among students in the process). > > Hope this helps to balance the biased view. ;-) > > > > > > Regards, > > Kris > > > > > > > > > > *Von:*The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *Im Auftrag von *Brian > Helman > *Gesendet:* Freitag, 1. Mai 2015 17:23 > *An:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <mailto: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 <tel:978.542.7272>* > > *Salem State University, 352 Lafayette St., Salem Massachusetts 01970* > > *GPS: 42.502129, -70.894779* > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
