Richard N. Rose University of Maryland Academic Telecommunications System Copyrighted by Richard N. Rose, February 19, this work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Our Customers  University System of Maryland (13 institutions and multiple regional satellite campuses)  Community Colleges (slowly justifying cost)  Maryland State Department of Higher Education  SEGP Affiliates Public Libraries (SAILOR) K-12 (SAILOR) Community Colleges Johns Hopkins University Morgan State University City of Baltimore State of Maryland (future)

Network Architecture  100% IP Based over  Sonet gigE OC3 DS3 T-1 Clear channel (only a few to smaller institutions) T-1 frame –very limited out of convenience NO ATM!

Network Architecture

Capacity Planning  Home Grown Core Infrastructure Monitoring More than adequate infrastructure between the campuses  IP Utilization Monitoring campus UMATS

Threats to success?  Budgets  Student entertainment usage  RIAA/MPAA  Perceived value of service by our customers  Unwillingness to partner with State bureaucracy  Poor and expensive service

Governance Structure  Chartered  By-Laws  UMATS Council 1 representative appointed by every campus president academic – administrative – libraries appointments by their peers Executive Committee Engineering Committee Adhoc Committees  Strategic Planning  Special Projects

Funding Sources  Campus Contributions $1.6M total budget  Allocation table, based on % usage of total sum of the whole Budgets approved 1 year in advance for planning and based on: Infrastructure Interface  IP Utilization  State Subsidies Lines to underserved areas Block Funding ($455K but trend to reduce) Bartering with State  lines for backup IP service

Cost Allocation Table FY05

Network Centric Services  Internet 1 gigeE Washington D.C. via College Park OC3 MAX, College Park OC3 Baltimore  Internet 2 OC48 between Baltimore & College Park  News (satellite and peering feeds)  Akamai Caching  Interactive Video, Switches, and Gateways  Centralized Purchasing  Centralized Management

Bureaucratic Relationships  State of Maryland Subsidies  455K  Bartering Arrangements with State, Government, City

State Acquisition Policies Restrictions  USM - Public Corporation

Private & Public Sector Partnerships  Baltimore Education and Research Network (BERnet) Consortium City of Baltimore State Government UMATS Morgan State University Johns Hopkins University Sailor (regional public library network) University of Maryland, Baltimore University of Maryland, Baltimore County Mid Atlantic Crossroads (MAX)

Economic Slowdown and Predictions  Budget Cuts  Washington D.C. area has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country at (2.5%)  State revenue is down, but still good in comparison to other states  SLOTS – Gambling – Casinos  Effectiveness and Efficiency Issues

CEO Insomnia (UMATS does not contribute to sleepless nights)  UMATS has increased services and lowered costs since it began. It has become a model within the USM for effectiveness and efficiency.  Current budget has not changed in three years By April of this year, ISP services will have increased by 6 times, expanded to three different geographic locations, for virtually the same cost as budgeted in 2003 I2 services have greatly expanded, at no additional cost Interactive video eliminates travel for meetings, extends academic services to rural areas and regional centers,

CEO Insomnia  Budgets FY 2004, the USM had a 14% reduction in State support Health benefits and growth in student enrollment has increased the budget gap by another $84, bringing the total to $206M in just over one year 800 positions were eliminated Salaries and new hires are frozen Academic offerings are being eliminated Facility openings are being postponed, repairs deferred, technology upgrades delayed  Since January, 2003, tuition has increased dramatically and is expected to climb even more January, 5% mid-year increase July, additional 13% increase September, another 10% Expected to see another 10% increase before Fall of 2004 Between Spring 2003 and Fall 2004, tuition increase averages 30%  Board approved a recommendation to require USM undergraduate programs to develop four-year tuition plans

Questions Richard N. Rose