Network Planning Task Force Special Spring Session

4/21/20032 Agenda Wireless status and funding Differential billing

4/21/20033 Wireless Status Many school/center funded wireless installations Schools (6) GSFA, Dental, Law, Wharton, SAS and SEAS Centers (5) Facilities, College House System, VPUL, ISC, Van Pelt Library Total access points (over 200) Total capacity (over 5000)

4/21/20034 Wireless Security Most wireless installations use MAC address authentication Several pilots with PennKey/Password authentication USquare Hill House & Harnwell House Houston Hall Problems being addressed by wireless security vendor. On July 1, 2003 PennKey/Password authentication will be operational.

4/21/20035 Wireless Security (Continued) In FY 2004, N&T will convert MAC address wireless security authentication to PennKey/Password authentication. Per FY 2003 NPTF recommendation, school/center funding to be used for these conversions. N&T will be sending out cost proposals in May.

4/21/20036 Wireless Funding The NPTF is charged with making a recommendation for funding public wireless for FY Current public wireless locations with a sponsor Bio Pond (SAS) Houston Hall (VPUL) Current public wireless locations soon without an operational cost sponsor USquare (funding until 10/2003) Hill House, Harnwell House (funding ends in FY 2003)

4/21/20037 Wireless Funding (Continued) Current public wireless locations without a sponsor where wireless is wanted College Green Others? N&T has done a quote for College Green. We are awaiting budget approval to proceed.

4/21/20038 FY ’04 Wireless Funding Assumptions No central monies available No allocated costs available No general fee monies available No Central Service Fee monies available NPTF’s recommendation was not to support public wireless.

4/21/20039 Wireless Funding Options Disconnect service. Have sponsors of one-time funds pay for wireless operational costs. Find new sponsors for locations without owners. Charge users a subscription fee.

4/21/ Next Steps Find a sponsor for College Green Find sponsors for other public wireless locations University Square Hill House, Harnwell Launch a subscription service ? Outsource service ?

4/21/ Differential Central Service Fee Rates Background Goals Current status Options Next Steps

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates - Background A Central Service Fee is assessed for each IP address used. Internet costs are part of the Central Service Fee bundle of services. Internet costs will be distributed equally across Penn’s 38,500 IP addresses in FY’04. Internet bandwidth usage and costs increased exponentially during the late 90’s. Periodic “snapshots” of usage demonstrated that College House residents had a different profile of usage than PennNet’s non-residential customers.

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates - Background (Continued) For FY’03, the NPTF wanted residential and non- residential CSF rates. It was technically, financially and politically challenging to implement differential bandwidth models based on residential and non-residential customers for FY’03. Therefore, in FY’02 and early FY’03, ISC focused on: Implementing bandwidth management techniques in the College Houses Experimenting with less expensive Internet Service Providers Securing more Internet bandwidth

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates - Goals To control Internet costs. To find ways to more equitably distribute costs of on and off campus bandwidth usage. To reach consensus on “baseline” usage. To develop ways of implementing differential billing or a tiered usage model. To use the new usage model to charge research grants. If possible, to reduce the CSF for the lowest tier of usage.

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates - Current Status Bandwidth management techniques in the College Houses are being successfully implemented. Upper limit on aggregate outbound usage (255Mbps) Maximum outbound bandwidth limits per IP address (400Kbps with a 400 KB burst) The limits on residential Internet usage are helping to control costs. Penn’s total Internet costs have been contained. However, the Provost/NPTF still recommended that usage models be developed.

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates - Options The NPTF analyzed three options Shared Model (current approach) Packet Billing Model Tiered Model The NPTF selected the tiered model for further analysis and development. $50k of the CSF in FY’04 will be for this effort.

4/21/ Differential CSF Rates – Next Steps Continue with the “shared” cost model and bandwidth management techniques in the College Houses in FY’04. Move towards the development/deployment of two tiered service levels of usage for PennNet in conjunction with a NPTF subcommittee. Should we consider the residential bandwidth management cap on individual IP addresses as the “baseline” service? Pilot “baseline” service with non-residential customers. Continue tracking commercial billing for bandwidth programs to determine if more mature products appear.