Community discussion on campus wireless, high-speed networking April 28

The campus has scheduled a special public session on Tuesday, April 28 to review options under consideration for expanding wireless coverage on campus, providing high-speed connections to remote cluster environments, and determining a rate structure for network use.

The meeting is scheduled from noon to 1:30pm in 1065 Kemper Hall.

The agenda includes a brief overview followed by a Q&A with presenter Professor Matt Bishop, Chair, Telecommunications Advisory Board.

This \034A Dialogue with the Community\035 event is being offered as a way to engage other interested members of the community in a discussion about recommendations being developed by the Telecommunications Advisory Board. It is sponsored by the Campus Council for Information Technology (CCFIT) and is open to anyone interested. Specifics about the session are provided below.

For further information, please contact council-support@ucdavis.edu.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NETWORK ISSUES:

1. Several buildings have CAT-3 wiring on campus rather than the faster CAT-5 wiring. How does this impact members of the campus community? We want to hear from those who are impacted, to use that input in making our recommendations.

2. We are interested in finding out the needs of people who require high speed connections to remote cluster environments. What do you need?

3. A campus task force made recommendations for expanding the wireless network. Should the priority ordering from that task group be revisited? What changes would most benefit the campus community?

RATE MODEL:

The current rate structure is based on the number of active NAMS that a campus unit has. Given the move to wireless, this is no longer a realistic assessment of network use. A different model is required.

Among the approaches being emphasiz ed is one based on FTEs, on the theory that those units with more FTEs are the ones which require more CR resources. We would like opinions on this idea, and any other ideas for a more equitable rate structure.