Present: Lubo Bojilov, David Bosso, Ted Cabeen, Larry Carver, Saturnino Doctor, Bill Doering, Randall Ehren, Mark McGilvray, Elise Meyer, Steve Miley, Bruce Miller, Alan Moses, Linda Moskovits, Andy Satomi, Deborah Scott, Jan Smith, Chris Sneathen, Paul Weakliem, Brian White, Jim Woods.
Update from 5/11/07 ITB Meeting
Commercial Wireless Data Service RFI
We keep hearing about people wanting more wireless data networking, and we are trying to determine the best way to provide this service. Should it be like our data backbone service where we build and maintain it ourselves, or will it become like ISP and student telephone services where the service will mostly be provided by commercial vendors? Brian White presented information about an RFI to investigate the options that are available for commercial wireless data service at UCSB. The options appear to range between what is offered in two cities in California: Riverside and Galt. To the wireless service end-user, the services are similar–there is a free-with-advertisements tier of service, and then there are higher tiers of service for a cost, with the cost aiming to be less than DSL or Cable Modem commercial service. To the institution there is a big difference: in Riverside the commercial provider has a contract with the city, and the city uses some of the provider’s other services in addition to wireless. In Galt the commercial provider made agreements with business and property owners to locate equipment on their roofs and the city did not have to enter into an agreement with the wireless provider to purchase a minimum level of services.
A draft background document was also presented for review–this or something similar would need to be included in the RFI. What is the strongest statement that we can make regarding wireless data networking service? We want the vendors to take our request seriously.
Issues that we are aware of:
- Some options may only provide wireless service in public spaces, and so the campus would still need to build its own wireless network to provide service to full buildings.
- Some options may require UCSB to make significant investment in other services offered by the commercial provider or to make available assets (rooftops, light poles) or power to the provider for little or no cost.
Concerns expressed by the group regarding getting wireless service from a commercial provider are:
- No other university has done this.
- What are the access issues?
- Since our campus ISP charges are based on usage, would campus wireless traffic accessing campus wired resources increase campus ISP costs?
- With a Galt-like solution, what issues might there be interfacing with Isla Vista, Santa Barbara County, and the Landlord’s Association?
- These business models can be characterized as a “partnership which leverages the assets of both entities.” We would be expected to endorse and promote the service. Will this be problematic with campus policy regarding endorsements? (Issue raised by Brian.)
- What are transition costs to move on to this service, or off it, if it didn’t succeed?
- Is there a business case for a commercial provider to justify the site preparation work necessary to locate wireless Access Points in the needed locations?
Background information:
- Riverside, CA (Just look at the first five pages): http://www.muniwireless.com/reports/docs/riverside-att-agreement.pdf
- Galt, CA: http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/5297/1/23/
- Here's a good article on the current state of municipal networks and their interest to the large carriers like AT&T: http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/5750/1/23/
The ITPG offered to help the ITB effort to develop the list of IT needs, and we were asked by the EVC to help in the following areas.
- Identify missing needs that are of comparable priority to what is already on the list. As priorities are identified,
- Provide insight into the phasing and implementation of these solutions.
- Identify the impacts on the departments.
Infrastructure Funding Model Draft Scope of Work
OIT will proceed with developing an RFP to hire a consultant to provide a plan for UCSB to move to UCSD's NGN funding model for networking, security, and identity management services. Visit the Sakai site to see the Draft Scope of Work (Wiki document ifm).
The one comment from the group was that UCSD’s Next Generation Network funding model occurs in the context where their end-users have better support for other IT services.
Draft Proposal for New Security Positions
The ITB recommended that we proceed with a proposal for the two new security positions, and that the funds come through a RUAC IP address cost increase.
The group expressed concern with this funding mechanism:
- People will try to avoid the charge, thus limiting the amount of funds available for this service.
- Are there issues recharging grants for this service?
- People will object to funding positions they don’t agree with.
Visit the Sakai site to see the Draft Proposal for New Security Positions (Wiki document security).
BEG Document
The BEG challenges document, Major Challenges to Communications Network Infrastructure at UCSB, was introduced at this meeting. The ITB recommended that Martie Levy, Jack Wolever, and Marc Fisher be consulted on this topic. Efforts are underway to meet with them.
Emergency Communications
Student Affairs will be keeping emergency contact information with the Registrar. They plan to begin collecting this information from students in the fall.
The group noted that what was really being sought was emergency alert information. They recommended that a policy for appropriate use of this information be developed first, before a collection effort is started. At last month’s ITLC meeting, UCI mentioned that they were considering sending important campus announcements in addition to emergency information. (Note: they have since stated that it will only be used for emergencies.)
UC IT Guidance Council Interim Report
The ITGC was formed to make IT part of the overall UC strategy and planning process, specifically to identify and recommend strategic directions to guide investments in information technology (IT) and the academic information environment. System-wide committees were formed to address specific topics including Advanced Networking Services and High Performance Computing. One of the recommendations is to form a UC Grid. UCSB is already participating in that grid with UCLA thanks to the efforts of Paul Weakliem and CNSI.
Feedback on the Interim ITGC Report (pdf) has been requested. Individual comments can be left at the ITGC Recommended Directions website. ITPG consensus comments can be presented at the August ITB meeting when ITGC members Kris Hafner and Dan Greenstein visit campus.
IBM Security Assessment (ISO 17799)
Not discussed.
Draft Procedure for Ongoing UCSB Web Standards Review and Endorsement
The Web Standards Group spent over two years developing the first Web Guide, which received official ITB endorsement in January 2007. Given the constantly evolving nature of the web, updates to the Web Guide will be a regular process. Please see the Draft Procedure for Ongoing UCSB Web Standards Review and Endorsement on the CSF website for the WSG's plans to do this with a streamlined approach. If you have any suggestions for improvement, please add a comment to the document page.
Information Items
No change in the CIO status.
The Web Standards Group has been asked for comments regarding the draft policies and guidelines for Accessibility in the Electronic Environment which were introduced at the last ITLC meeting.
Matt Tirrell has been named chair of the ATPG.
Back to ITPG Meeting Schedule
