Present: Glenn Davis, Phil Handley, Bill Koseluk, Tom Marazita, Elise Meyer, Alan Moses, Joan Murdoch, Vince Sefcik, Jamie Sonsini, Tom Lawton, Bob Sugar, Sean Souther
Not Present: Debbie Anglin, Kevin Barron, Art Battson, Ken Bowers, Bill Doering, George Gregg, Sonia Johnston, Pam Lombardo, Bill McTague, Ed Mehlschau, Larry Murdock, Kevin Schmidt, John Vasi, Pamela Webb
Reporting on discussions at the January 21 CNC meeting, Bob Sugar noted that there is sufficient funding to maintain the FDDI backbone, complete conversion off of the broadband network and implement the CalREN-2 network design. Funding includes Communications Services initial allocation of $120K for CalREN-2 equipment plus $322K one-time and $150K per year for three years provided in response to a request by Vice Chancellor Sheldon.
Vince described a UCOP plan to provide equipment necessary to connect the UCSB FDDI network to the CalREN-2 router. This change includes changing the billing algorithm for UCnet to the CalREN-2 model which, in turn, permits UCSB to remove the "traffic shaping software" limiting our connection to 4 Mbits per second. Having already removed that limitation, we are now seeing 6-7 Mbit/sec spikes in traffic. The new connection is planned for February.
Another benefit of the conversion of UCnet to CalREN-2 is a planned reduction in total costs to the campus, thus providing the $25K necessary to join UCAID (Internet2). The three UC campuses not currently members of UCAID must join to make us eligible to attach the CalREN-2 network to Abilene, the national incarnation of Internet2.
Vince also reported on plans to replace the Frame Relay Service with an offer to local ISPs to peer with UCSB. In this model local ISPs would make direct attachments to equipment located in Public Safety. This change would allow people using local ISPs to connect directly to UCSB without competing for bandwidth on the Internet.
Vince noted that ADSL is now available from GTE via some local ISPs. Availability depends on distance from the GTE central office and appropriate cable paths. It was noted that this service might also be restricted to certain client software configurations. Check with your ISP.
Turning to Subcommittee reports we learned that chairs are waiting for lists of those agreeing to service on subcommittees. It was suggested that chairs move forward assuming all that were listed are going to participate.
In response to a question regarding the future of the CNC, Bob responded that the discussion at the CNC meeting was inconclusive. It was decided to leave the CNC in place to see if future meetings are required. The combination of ITB/ITPG might take over most previous functions of CNC. (One example of a situation that could benefit from the continuing existence of CNC is future budget discussions. If there were insufficient funds to cover all compelling projects it might be good to have a detailed faculty-staff discussion of priorities before forwarding recommendations to the ITB.) CNC faculty members have been added to the ITPG discussion list. ITPG chairs will endeavor to separate general from detailed discussion items and publish agenda of future meetings so that faculty can decide when they wish to participate.
Bill Koseluk then handed out updated workstation survey results. We currently have 1244 verified workstations (2/2/99 data). When some acquisitions that are currently in process are added the total is likely to be between 1300 and 1350.
It was noted that the combination of centralized labs and open access facilities accounts for 44% of the seats while about 53% are located in departmental facilities. (The centralized facilities are mostly devoted to instruction although some become open access at times.)
In response to a question regarding the 2-year life span assigned to the workstations in the "Advanced Tech" lab, Bill indicated that the short life span was planned so that equipment would be refreshed frequently to provide the newest technology.
Bill noted that reports from departments required some interpretation due to difference in definitions and reporting formats (some departments reported seats with no workstations, for example).
It was noted that some departments restrict workstations to majors while others (e.g., Engineering) permit any student in the college to use workstations in any of the labs.
The results indicate that graduate students use mostly departmental facilities and, conversely, departmental facilities are provided mostly for graduate students.
There was some confusion regarding the definition of "tiers". For example, how would we categorize a workstation that had sophisticated discipline-specific software but lacked web access? (Bill opted to put workstations with two tiers listed in the higher tier.)
Some respondents expressed concern for the security of their equipment and asked that specific locations not be advertised in a widely distributed report.
ITPG members expressed thanks to Bill for compiling the data and to all those who contributed to the data gathering process.
We then moved to a discussion of how to characterize the results for presentation to ITB.
Alan expressed concerns about reporting a number that would imply a ratio of workstations to students when all seats are not the same - we have many different kinds of equipment in locations with many different restrictions on access. The committee noted that we need to ask Stuart Lynn if similar issues were present in the data compiled for the UCOP report.
Other questions that are implied, but not answered, by the survey include: 1) What are the bottlenecks? 2) Where do they arise?, 3) What problems do students have gaining access to workstations and, 4) What are the aspirations of the faculty in this area?
Answering the question of what basic machines we now have implies that we currently have space for at least that number. Further, the number of seats combined with the age of the machines implies the cost of keeping the existing seats maintained and current. This number would vary with the desired tier of the majority of machines, but could still be calculated (e.g., 80% of the current open access machines are at tier 1).
Next, we turned to questions that ITPG might have for ITB to assist in calculating the need in the future. For example, if the restriction that some faculty members feel regarding assignments that require web access were lifted, what would happen? At present we have only anecdotes although some data have been collected from current courses, one in anthropology and others in physics. Mark Aldenderfer provided a write-up on the anthropology class survey that we plan to post on the ITPG web site. Glenn gave a brief overview. Surprises included the number of students who reported using equipment belonging to friends and the low percentage who reported using both workstations on campus and at home. The high percentage reporting that the assignment was "easy to complete" elicited a lively discussion.
It was noted that our basic question was how to allocate a scarce resource. How do we decide what is good enough? We have not found target ratios in the CAUSE literature, but those who have framed the question seem to assume universal access is the target. We might get statistical ratios from ISPs or from places like the Library's reserve book room.
We agreed that "web access" needs further definition by tier for ITB. If faculty are designing courses that require streaming video, we need to make them aware of the costs.
We discussed the preference of students to use their home workstations. Given this preference and the growing number of students owning computers, what should the target ratio be? What is the implication for Financial Aid?
We also discussed the match of "tier" to class level. Frosh might come to campus with higher performance machines and live in the dorms with higher bandwidth than upper division students. This is the reverse of what might be desirable as students progress through class levels and take on more challenging and complex assignments. Such assignments are also more likely to require software that is expensive to license.
We agreed that ITB should be made aware of the costs of supporting the current infrastructure. It was suggested that costs might approach $650,000 per year for a 1200 machine base (note: later data suggested the number is closer to $800,000, which is the number conveyed to ITB). IUC does provide some funding, but it is minimal and tuned to the 1994 level of technology and infrastructure. New money has tended to create new labs rather than upgrade existing labs and, thus, increase the maintenance problem.
ITPG members agree that there needs to be a constant level of funding available to upgrade aging workstations. Such funds could be awarded on a competitive basis rather than being built into the permanent budgets of existing facilities, but one way or another the possibility of obtaining funding to upgrade obsolete units must be recognized in the planning process.
Some departmental facilities become so old that workstations are retired without replacing them or staff continues to support workstations that have become too old to maintain economically.
If the campus decides to depend more on students owning their own machines, there are implications for the support structure we need to evolve on campus. We might want to negotiate a better deal with an ISP or provide access with modems and wiring or subsidize student acquisitions in some way. We should also plan for the day when the community becomes heavily wired as is happening in San Diego and Seattle. Costs for bundles of voice/video/data are declining and vendors are planning to offer fixed-rate packages to provide all services in one connection.
A current problem is the economics of wiring the smaller buildings in Isla Vista. It isn't currently feasible for landlords of buildings with less than 200 residents to wire. The fraternities and sororities may be the last remaining units with sufficient scale.
Cox is planning to make a big push in Isla Vista with a package of voice/video/data. It would not seem wise for UCSB to compete in this area.
An important question is what proportion of the time students spend connected to UCSB resources as opposed to resources off campus. Some believe that students are beginning to view their ISP connection like they view their telephone and television - a necessity for survival in an information-based society.
If the trend is for students to provide their own computer and ISP, the campus has certain responsibilities including: 1) provision of Financial Aid for technology to some students, 2) maintenance of a safety net for students without computers, 3) provision of high-end services that are not feasible on home computers because of bandwidth or licenses, 4) provision of authentication service that recognizes students.
Another issue is how to inform the population of students and faculty regarding the campus policy on student access and on what level of access (e.g., bandwidth) students are likely to have available. What information about services that exist will be available and what guidance is to be provided to incoming students or others who wish to acquire services?
We agreed that a web page is needed to describe the ISPs that are available in the local area – perhaps just a set of pointers to the ISP web pages would suffice. Vince agreed to look into constructing such a page.
The group then turned to the preparation for the February 2 ITB meeting and produced an outline of information that ITPG wished to convey. (Notes for the ITB presentation will be posted separately.)
Reminder: ITPG/ITB meeting with Stuart Lynn at 3:45 p.m. on Friday, February 5, in Building 406, Room 216 - please take the outside stairs.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
