Connection Failure IET : Remote Access
Connection Failure

Remote Access

RAMP Report, 10/12/98


Table of Contents   |    Acknowledgements    |    Section:  1   |    2   |    3   |    4   |    5   |    Appendices




Remote Access to UC Davis


Purpose of Document

Existing Issues

Campus Needs for Remote Access are Not Being Met

Costs of Meeting Remote Access Needs are Significant

Current Remote Access Service Has No Permanent Funding

Campus Constituencies Do Not Agree on the Campus' Role in Providing Remote Access Services

New Pricing, Based on Levels of Access Usage, Is Creating Critical Containment Issues

The Campus Cannot Negotiate Significant Discounts or Service Level Agreements in the Current Commodity ISP Market without Leverage

Internet2 and CalREN2 Will Act As Demand Drivers for Increased Bandwidth All the Way to the Home Desktop

The Davis Region is Low Priority for Service Providers of New, High-Speed Communication Services

Campus Needs

Campus Community Perspective

Service Perspective

Recent Remote Access History

Context for Universal Access to Online Resources

Academic Environment

Administrative Environment

Ubiquity of Universal Access

Key Components of Universal Access

Sample Guiding Universal Access Principle

Sample Universal Access Goals

Purpose of Document


This document provides background information and recommendations regarding remote computer access issues for the UC Davis campus. The purpose of this report is to assist in facilitation of the decision-making process for provisioning remote (off-site) access to the campus computer network. Under consideration are all remote access options that may serve the campus community. Examples of remote access options include: dial-up networking from a home computer, connection through an ISDN line, or Internet connection through a private Internet Service Provider (ISP). A three-tiered consultation process was used in gathering data for this report:
  • Needs assessment and evaluation
  • Community education and disscusion
  • Pilot projects and consultation
Data was collected on campus needs, the current remote access services and pilot projects through surveys, case studies, individual interviews, focus groups, exchanges on electronic mailing lists and panel discussions. Education of the campus community about remote access issues was pursued through a combination of articles in the IT Times, presentations, Web pages, handouts and use of campus electronic mailing lists. Consultation was carried out with individual pilot project participants and formal representative bodies including the Joint Campus Committee on Information Technology. Informal consultation was conducted with departmental Technology Support Coordinators (TSCs) and experts from other campuses at the Remote Access Think Tank.


Existing Issues


Campus Needs for Remote Access Are Not Being Met

The existing campus modem bank is inundated with calls far exceeding the number it can adequately handle. This results in a high rate of busy signals and call disconnects. Students, faculty and staff have expressed high levels of concern over the significant difficulty they consequently experience while trying to access the university's computer network through the campus modem pool. A potential source of relief is connection to campus computing resources through an ISP. However, the campus rate of adoption for connection through a personal ISP account has been very slow. Currently, less than 20% of the campus community use an ISP (such as CalWeb or MCI) for their remote access after two years of declining quality of free service and a campaign of b encouragement.

Costs of Meeting Campus Remote Access Needs Are Significant

If the campus provides remote access services, there are two types of associated costs�one-time vs. on-going costs. The former cover acquisition of equipment, installation of communication lines and technical support for installation, while on-going costs encompass day-to-day support and network operations, including user support costs, monthly line charges and replacement costs as the equipment's life-cycle ends. Depending on the level of service desired (in particular the number of access ports), one-time costs could range from $485,000 to $1,423,000 and potential annual operating costs range from $731,000 to $1,595,000.

Current Remote Access Service Has No Permanent Funding

Remote access services haven't been explicitly funded by the campus. Funding has come from a cross-subsidy from each campus telephone user, who paid an estimated $37/year to subsidize the modem service.

In order to maintain network rates previously proposed to the campus and to absorb price increases within network and telephony over the past year, Communication Resources deferred full subsidization of the modem pool during the 1998-99 fiscal year. Approximately $30,000 in trunking costs will be subsidized through toll rates. The remaining $104,000 in staffing, overhead and support costs have not been funded. This created a planned operational deficit. Through consultation with the Net21 Budget and Policy Oversight Committee, a decision was recently made to cover this deficit for 1998-99. An allocation of $563,000 was also made for the acquisition and installation of new modems. This funding also covers operating and maintenance costs for a two year period, but does not cover support costs, equipment replacement or Internet costs.

Campus Constituencies Do Not Agree on the Campus' Role in Providing Remote Access Services

A history of free remote access services has created a sense of entitlement, especially among students. In a survey of faculty, staff and students, almost 40% of correspondents felt the campus should subsidize the entire cost of remote access, and a total of 75% of respondents indicated that they would like UC Davis to support a subsidy of half or more of the costs. 15% of survey respondents were willing to accept no role for the campus in providing remote access and felt that this should be handled entirely by the private sector.

Many of those who believe that the campus has no role in providing or subsidizing remote access indicated that an increasing proportion of their use is likely to be personal, rather than academic. For participants in the Remote Access Pilot, the average split between academic and personal use was 75% academic: 25% personal. For students surveyed, more than 40% reported that less than half of their on-line sessions were for academic purposes.

New Pricing, Based on Levels of Access Usage, Is Creating Critical Cost Containment Issues

The flat-rate model of Internet access, so advantageous to high-volume educational users, is being phased out. The cost of campus connection to the Internet is predicted to rise sharply due to the usage-based pricing being implemented by external vendors. This has implications for the user as well as the institution.

The Campus Cannot Negotiate Significant Discounts or Service Level Agreements in the Current Commodity ISP Market without Leverage

Either funding and/or significant, active consolidation of the campus remote access market is necessary for negotiating an agreement that would provide meaningful cost-reduction for the campus community. The experiment of the past two years, using non-exclusive agreements, passive campus market consolidation and joint marketing agreements, has not been successful for this campus. ISPs with current agreements are not bly marketing the benefits of an ISP connection to campus users, nor providing monetary inducements beyond a waiver of set-up charges.

Internet2 and CalREN2 Will Act As Demand Drivers for Increased Bandwidth All the Way to the Home Desktop

The next generation of Internet initiatives will likely exacerbate the existing remote access problem, rather than solving it. These initiatives will create high bandwidth educational applications. Faculty, students and staff who come to depend on the new campus-based applications to accomplish their academic and professional goals will most likely seek to access these applications from home, and this will create an increased need for greater remote access bandwidth.

The Davis Region Is Low Priority for Service Providers of New, High-speed Communication Services

Availability in the greater Davis area of newer means of high speed data communication, such as cable data transmission and xDSL is lagging behind other regions of the country. Deployment of these services in the Davis area lags three or more years behind the Bay Area and Southern California. Although UC Davis has been negotiating with the local cable provider for more than three years, the provider has no interest in upgrading the cable infrastructure to provide data communications services. Similarly, Pacific Bell has indicated that they do not plan to deploy xDSL services in Davis for some time, unless UC Davis can demonstrate (or aggregate) sufficient market demand.

Back to top   |   back to Table of Contents.


Campus Needs


Campus Community Perspective

Based on surveys conducted in the past year, faculty, staff and students identify the following remote access needs:
  • Accessibility-Respondents ranked accessibility as the most important attribute of remote access.
  • Speed-Respondents ranked speed as the second most important attribute.
  • Lowest possible cost-Respondents ranked price as the third most important attribute.
  • Applications-The remote access alternative(s) must support remote access applications in order of priority, with electronic mail as the first priority application for the broadest population. Other applications, in order of priority, are Web browsing, ftp, Web development, and other applications (telnet, Melvyl).
  • Equal access-Members of the campus community recognize that faculty members are better able to pay costs than some staff members and students, and are concerned that the services be equally accessible to all.
  • Availability outside Davis-Regional and nationwide service is important to a large subset of the campus community (faculty and staff when traveling, and students when at their home communities temporarily).
  • Choices-Many members of the campus community indicated that they want a range of services, possibly tiered, to support their remote access needs. The range of choices should provide flexibility and responsiveness to special user needs.
  • Performance-Latency is a concern, given the congestion that occurs at exchange points on the Internet. Latency can be addressed either by keeping local traffic local, or by developing an exclusive contract with an ISP which has a dedicated connection to UC Davis' border router.
  • Security and authentication-The remote access alternative(s) must permit remote access to restricted campus resources and must not jeopardize the security of the campus network.
  • ISP Market-The remote access alternative(s) must acknowledge the current state of the ISP market in Davis, but also look forward to improving the overall choice set in the longer run (to include higher-speed access).
Service Perspective

From a service perspective, the following remote access needs apply:
  • Security and authentication-The remote access alternative(s) must permit remote access to restricted campus resources and must not jeopardize the security of the campus network.
  • Cost containment-
  1. Minimizing capital investment. Remote access equipment is evolving very rapidly and may have to be replaced frequently
  2. Keeping on-going costs as low as possible
  3. Sharing costs with users of services
  4. Managing the volume of traffic traveling through the campus Internet connection. With vendor charges now based on volume, Internet costs may reach $500,000 or more annually within the next three years.

Recent Remote Access History


The issue of the campus modem pool usage and its rapid growth was first officially addressed during Spring of 1995 when the Joint Campus Committee on Information Technology (JCCIT) organized a Modem Use Committee (MUC) to make recommendations. As of October of 1995, modem usage was at an all-time high. At that time the modem pool had 411 modems. 65% were set up to support General Terminal Service, supporting telnet and other networking utilities, while the remaining 35% were used for PPP/SLIP services. The PPP/SLIP services were tracked, and they showed and average call length of approximately 29 minutes with a usage ratio of 80% students: 15% staff: 5% faculty. More than 27,000 calls were received on a typical peak day, with each modem answering between 37 and 95 calls per day. During this period, many users complained of busy signals. In Fall of 1995, Information Technology (IT) enlarged the pool to 507 modems. With this addition, the size of the campus modem pool had almost doubled since the beginning of the year.

The MUC recommended outsourcing modem service based on the following findings:
  • An estimate of annual costs of $300,000 and an alarming growth trend
  • Lack of support for on going or expanded campus funding of remote access services. The committee found that each campus telephone user was currently paying an estimated $37/year to subsidize the modem service, however, the campus telephone users were less likely to use the service than others
  • Lack of trunking to Pacific Bell and space for new modems
The JCCIT recommended that IT proceed with a Request For Quote (RFQ) for outsourcing the modem service while keeping the current modem pool running (at no charge to users) until its demise due to age and equipment failure.

In February 1996, per the JCCIT's recommendation, IT and Purchasing tried to secure a favorable agreement with an ISP through competitive bidding. The successful bidder would then supply dial-up modem services for UC Davis faculty, staff and students. This effort was unsuccessful. One factor that became an issue in the negotiation process was that the university could not guarantee an exclusive agreement with one vendor. UC Davis faculty, staff and students are free to choose any ISP they wish for e-mail and Internet access. Another factor was that UC Davis had no funds to pay the successful bidder and was offering what essentially amounted to a joint marketing agreement. IT then surveyed all of the RFQ respondents to collect further information and negotiated non-exclusive agreements with two ISPs, CalWeb and MCI.

As of 1996, the campus strategy for provisioning remote access services was to continue to maintain the existing modem pool (capped at the 1995 level of 507 modems) until it failed and to encourage, on a continuing basis, UC Davis faculty, staff and students to contract with an ISP for their dial-up access needs.

As demand is still increasing for access to the campus modem pool, this strategy has not alleviated pressure on campus resources. Until Winter 1998, IP-based authentication represented a barrier for ISP users. The need for security made it impossible for many ISP users to obtain remote access to protected on-line campus resources.

The following remote access issues remain open with respect to the original 1996 recommendation:
  • Students are extremely price sensitive with regard to modem service. Using the free campus modem pool continues to be the preferred alternative to paying for service through an ISP.
  • Students feel a b sense of entitlement to free modem service.
  • RFQs would be more attractive to vendors if UC Davis could consolidate its remote access market.
  • The ability to make exclusive vendor agreements would provide greater contract negotiation leverage for UC Davis.
Back to top   |   back to Table of Contents.


Context for Universal Access to Online Resources


Source: "A Framework for Universal Intranet Access," William H. Graves, CAUSE/FFECT Volume 20, Number 2, Summer 1997, pp. 48-52

UC Davis, with many other campuses, has recently made major networking investments to support, if not a level of "universal" intranet access, a high degree of high-speed access for all students, all faculty members, and many non-faculty employees. The importance of universal access is very closely linked to the expected role of information technology in support of the academic mission and administrative processes serving that mission.

Academic Environment

University's stakeholders expect that one of the skill and knowledge sets attained by students will be basic information literacy skills necessary to navigate the work environment they will encounter upon graduation. According to Graves, this includes the ability to:
  • Communicate using e-mail and discussion-group software
  • Retrieve, analyze, and critically evaluate information on the Internet
  • Communicate the results of the analysis electronically
Administrative Environment

For the campus to reap information technology's benefits, which has "enabled the redesign of communication processes, workflow, and many other business processes and practices," and thus improved effectiveness and efficiency, members of the faculty, staff and student body must have easy access to "a common set of communication and administrative tools." These tools include, among others, student information systems, financial planning and tracking systems, and human resources systems.

Ubiquity of Universal Access

The problem of access is not just a problem of critical mass; it is a problem of ubiquity. The following quotes illustrate the need for almost every member of the faculty, staff and student body to have easy access to the institution's network and its resources:
  • "If one student in a class does not have access to the institution's network, then the instructor cannot take full advantage of e-mail, a class listserv, a class Web home page, or a Web-based discussion group for the class."
  • "The instructor must have access to the network if any student in the class is to take advantage of network services."
  • "Every employee with responsibilities for using an online system . . . must have online access to the system if the institution is to avoid the duplication costs and confusion of operating both an online system and a paper-based system."
Key Components of Universal Access

Component of Universal Access Description Project Providing
Connections between campus buildings The fiber network interconnecting all buildings on the geographically- contiguous campus, including any residence halls Network 21
Connections from the campus network to off-campus programs Connecting program office sites, whether housed in institutionally owned or leased space Network 21 Build-Out
Connections within buildings Wiring infrastructure and network electronics within each institutionally-occupied building, including any residence halls Network 21
Mobile connections to the campus network by individuals Network connectivity from home, when traveling, or when conducting field work Remote Access Projects (including RAMP and Wireless)
Personal and convenient access to a networked computer Network access ports in dorm rooms Open access computer labs (critical safety net for on-campus network access during the class day); computer-equipped classrooms Notebook access ports in common spaces Notebook access ports for classroom "seats" Departmental computers ResNet Computer Lab Program     Public network access ports for notebook computers
Access to campus resources (newsgroups, Web pages, databases) regardless of whether request for service originates through campus network or from off-campus User-based authentication, instead of address-based authentication Distributed Authentication Services


Sample Guiding Universal Access Principle

"All full-time students should have equal access to a baseline of information technology resources, including convenient and affordable access to a personal computer connected to the campus network at any time and from any place they are studying. In any plan that would have students directly bear some or all of the costs of these baseline services, the institution must be prepared to ensure equality of opportunity for students on financial aid or in tight financial circumstances, and must adhere to the principle that access to the institution's baseline educational resources must be available throughout their studies to all potential students who qualify for admission."


Sample Universal Access Goals


Discussion Example 1
All students, all faculty members, and most non-faculty employees will have equal, convenient and affordable access to a personal computer connected to the campus network at any time, and from almost any place they are working or studyingthe library, from home, a field location, or another off-campus location. In any plan that would have students directly bear some or all of the costs of these access services, UCD will work to ensure equality of opportunity for students on financial aid or in tight financial circumstances.

Discussion Example 2
All students will have equal, convenient and free access to the campus network at any time and from any place.

Discussion Example 3
Increasingly, students, faculty and staff need access to the campus network from off-campus as well as from on-campus. UCD will ensure that on-campus access is available in all on-campus residences, classrooms, offices, computer labs, and common areas (lounges, libraries, study areas) and that the access will be of high-quality, speed, and reliability. Off-campus access is the shared responsibility of the individual student, faculty, or staff person, and the campus.

Discussion Example 4
UCD should not do what it cannot do uniquely well. Unless the institution can demonstrate that it has a compelling strength (and need) in the area of remote access, it should not take on responsibility for funding or providing such services, but should leave providing remote access services to those who are positioned better to do so (such as the private sector, for example).

Back to top




Table of Contents   |    Acknowledgements    |    Section:  1   |    2   |    3   |    4   |    5   |    Appendices


Connection Failure