4 Funding Models for Network '99 Core Network Operations CITS Funding Model Subcommittee January 26, 1995 Recommendation 11. A small Work Group of the Council should be formed to analyze the models from Recommendation 10. This group should include some external (to CITS) "consultants" drawn from the faculty and staff. This report is due in the office of the Executive Director by Aug. 1. Work Group Members: Andy Adkins, Chair Jim Corey Barbara Oliver Ken Portier Dave Pokorney Dick Elnicki Introduction The committee reviewed the funding model recommendations of the CITS Standing Committee on Administrative Computing and the CITS Standing Committee on Academic Computing. The committee also discussed additional models not included in these recommendations. Funding Models received from CITSADMIN See attachment from CITSADMIN Funding Models received from CITSAC See attachment from CITSAC Existing Funding Models @ U.F. HEALTHNET Operations (Sharon Wheeler) Service to the PC (not including the Network Interface Adapter). Cost sharing with funds from HEALTHNET, Shands, and "off the top" from the Health Center. Initial Connect Charge of $300 - $350 per workstation connection. Annual Service Charge of $145 per workstation connection. Definition of Existing CORE Network Operations In the following discussion, "core" or "basic" networking activities and facilities are those data and video network services and associated equipment and infrastructure which are provided by the University for the support and benefit of any and all units of the University and which are managed centrally by the University. Within that framework, the phrase "core networking services" will subsume the following facilities, services, and service-level expectations throughout this report: Planning, deployment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the core data networking fiber plant, associated routers, monitors, and related electronics (including point-of- presence gear in buildings) and analogous planning, deployment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the core broadband cable TV plan, the associated antennas, headend, and related electronics are included. These operations are expected to be available and maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with minimal downtime for scheduled maintenance. Replacement of broken electronics, cabling, antennas, etc. to sustain service levels is a core networking responsibility. Facility upgrades necessary to preserve service levels (driven either by the necessity of maintaining technical currency or by increased use e.g. growth of traffic) also are included in core service-level expectations. Provision and execution of a systematic plan for extension of connectivity to main-campus buildings previously unconnected is considered to be a core service- level expectation. Discretionary upgrades involving, for example, wholesale replacement of electronics or cable to move an entire network (data or video) to a markedly higher service level are not considered to be part of core services. Extension of connectivity to off-campus sites is considered to fall in the category of special projects, hence is not a core service-level expectation. Throughout, the term "Point of Presence" or "POP" refers to a physical location where responsibility for management of the network signal passes from Network Services to one or more clients of the core network. Signal protocols, site equipment management responsibility and related matters at the POP vary according to history and need. Current Expense of CORE Network Operations As defined above, CORE Network Operations FY93-94 ACTUAL budget was $351K; FY94-95 REQUESTED budget is $541K. Upgrades and extensions to the network depend upon year end funding. However, in FY93-94, no year end funds were available. See attachment, "Network Services Budget Proposals, Revision 4." Recommended Models The models were ranked according to the extent of change required by the model and the feasibility of implementation. The following three models are identified as representative of our discussions. Model 1 - "Status Quo Procedures" This model is essentially the Status Quo model examined by the CITS Academic Computing committee. Salary, operating expense, and some equipment funding for core network services are provided from a combination of a partial base budget from the Provost's Office, funds from a levy on local telephone charges, funds from a portion of long-distance telephone charges rebated to the University by the State University System (SUS), and ad hoc supplements during some Fiscal Years to meet exigencies. Conduit expansion is funded from PECO Minor Money allocations which compete with other University needs. The majority of equipment for expansion and/or upgrades is funded "when possible," most often as an end-of-year list of projects. We concur at least in part with the CITSAC report which said that this model is "strong on flexibility, and frugal in its use of resources." However, the strength of this model can be "brittle" as readily as "flexible" since it makes every problem into an emergency. Because of twin flaws, this model breaks rather than failing gracefully. Those flaws are: lack of committed funding sufficient to maintain basic service levels and inability to sustain required maintenance and routine extension of connectivity. When no end-of-year funding is available (as in FY 93-94), for example, units which have made commitments based on expectation of routine extension of network connectivity find their plans not altered but wrecked. For extension involving conduit, the model is, at best, slow, since it takes one FY to get the PECO money and build the conduit. At the end of that FY, in a "good" year, enough equipment money will be made available to do the actual extension by mid- way into the following FY. This slowness has driven unattached units in some instances to find their own funding for extension projects. In a nutshell, funding availability drives this model more strongly than priorities. Model 2 - "Budgeted Core/Separate Project Funding" This is essentially the model proposed by the CITS Administrative Computing committee. The budget for core equipment, services and personnel of UFNET is developed at the end of each fiscal year, and after negotiations with the Provost, funding assigned for the coming year. The budget is based on a goal of maintaining existing services. Expansion of network services to new buildings, units, or technology beyond that funded as part of the CORE system comes under a separate budget process and involves separate negotiations between the Provost and parties affected. Network expansion competes with all other units for funds. This model attempts to address some of the weaknesses of the Status Quo Procedures model. Because funding for basic services and operations for the network is provided at the beginning of the year, services are assured, and planning is required. Because network expansion competes with other units (colleges, institutes, centers, etc.) for major project funding, planning and public participation in priority setting are encouraged. There is still no financial commitment to expansion of network services and technology upgrades are not always assured. The model assumes that core network technology will make periodic quantum shifts (in speed, protocols, etc.) which will require major one-time funding to implement. Such shifts are not part of the annual budget. The core network budget funds the network and services as they exist at the beginning of the year. This model does not preclude imposing an "impact fee" on new units or individuals who join the network during the year, nor does this model preclude an impact fee on units which dramatically change their local computing environments in such a way as to force the core network to make mid-year changes in order to maintain services. Such impact fees would cover a negotiated fraction of total documented costs to the network core. Model 3 - "Enhanced Services" This model addresses funding for network services which go beyond those currently provided. Services beyond those funded as part of the core would come under the category of enhanced services. The Funding Model Subcommittee sees enhanced services being funded by the direct recipients of these services. In some cases, the services provided might be paid by one-time impact fees, as for example, when a large number of computers in a unit are hooked up to the network. Ongoing enhanced support would be paid by a periodic user fee. This user fee should be related to the cost of providing the service, not utilization based metrics. Impact and user fees allow users to obtain services which they feel are critical to their units' operations. It allows individual units to determine their funding priorities. It also saves the Provost from funding services which might not be used by all units. Conclusions UFNET is the centralized computer communication environment of the University of Florida. It should be at a production- grade level. This suggests that the historical status quo procedures, while perhaps necessary in view of current funding, can put essential administration, instruction, and research activities at significant risk. The committee expects little "off-the-top" funding increases in the coming years. The Funding Model Subcommittee recommends transition from Model #1 to Model #2 as soon as possible, with the addition of Model #3 soon thereafter. Planning for Model #3 should begin immediately. Because some existing users have surpassed the core by pushing the state-of-the-art and exploring new solutions, individual departments and units are encouraged to continue to experiment with solutions to local problems.