Who pays for Resnet costs & how are costs recovered?
The report finds that small, predominantly private institutions follow a central funding model, while medium to large, predominantly public institutions, incorporate some form of technology fee/recharge system to recover some of the cost.
An increasing number of schools are funding the network as a core service from central university funds. This may be because institutions are recognizing that robust network capability and increased performance is central to business, academic functions, and research.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, the number of schools that receive some form of departmental assistance in addition to central funding is on a continuing downward trend.
Wireless coverage and capacity
As more and more institutions sign on to the “Bring Your Own Everything” movement, and as more students become mobile, administrators are responding to increasing expectations and demands for “anywhere, anytime” access.
Data captured from 2015 shows 65.4 percent of campuses providing robust wireless coverage (of four bars or more) throughout more than 80 percent of their campus, a 20 percent increase from 2013. More than half of all business officers say they support coverage for the entire campus, rather than restricting coverage to the most densely-populated areas due to limited funding.
While research shows an increase in the percentage of schools offering robust wireless coverage on their on-campus student areas, not all residential spaces enjoy seamless coverage. Mirroring 2014 results, the areas where students spend the most time—common areas, dining halls, and residential rooms—are still not getting as robust coverage as the academic and administrative areas. 2015 data show a very small decline in the percentage of institutions offering robust coverage in all areas.
Cellular reception
In areas where traditional connectivity is difficult to implement or sustain, 52 percent of institutions are considering an array of services to augment residential cellular reception on campus, a decline from 56 percent in 2014 and 76 percent in 2013. 31 percent of institutions plan to deploy in-building DAS [Distributed Antenna Systems], 15 percent outdoor DAS, and 23 percent outdoor cellular sites/towers. Other considerations are small cell technology, or Femtocells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtocell (13 percent), and in-building cellular connection (9 percent).
48 percent of institutions have no plans for cellular augmentation because the cellular reception on the campus is satisfactory, it is cost-prohibitive to increase cellular infrastructure, or there is a perception that the responsibility for providing satisfactory cellular coverage rests on the carriers.
(Next page: Meeting bandwidth demands, outsourcing, future considerations)
- 25 education trends for 2018 - January 1, 2018
- IT #1: 6 essential technologies on the higher ed horizon - December 27, 2017
- #3: 3 big ways today’s college students are different from just a decade ago - December 27, 2017