Reasons for not adopting broadband
- no access
- can't afford
- can't use
- don't want
Goal is to address the last two.
Set up computer centers throughout the State of Michigan, mostly libraries, over 200 in all.
- Deployed over 2000 computers (2/3 of target)
- over 15,000 people trained
700 square miles
6000 work stations
How to provide centralized service to all that is fair and uniform?
- IBM provided a virtual desktop as a service solution.
- Single pooled student image delivered as Enhanced Internet Access (EIA)
- Cost effective
- Familiarity with E-rate funding
- ability to co-locate infrastructure near customer premises
- ability to add more work stations at a flat rate
- improved desktop performance
- equalized student access
- home access to teachers or home bound students
- enhanced services (web clients, I-pad, Android, Wyse thin clients)
Started with vmware/desktone broker
Now, Citrix/Xendesktop broker
Did a number of things to connect to University of Minnesota and I2 as early as 2001.
- Started doing things via Internet with remote universities. Have their own hub room.
- In 2006 received an award to begin partnering with hospitals.
- Now connect to a network of Minnesota universities, public agencies.
- Instruction - partnering with high schools
- sharing of coursework
- expanded access to resources
- science lab
- Resource sharing - e.g., virtual servers
- Training of incumbent workforce in healthcare and manufacturing
- Industry partners access Pine Tech courses
- Parnerships come first
- common need
- shared vision
- enlightened self interest
CCs are backbone of economic development in North Caroline.
- 3rd largest in US
- 1/8 of citizens attended a CC
- NC Law: No one can live more than a 30 minute drive from a CC.
- NC colleges, because of its size, provides a lot of data to researchers and funding agencies studying/assessing success.
We have to respond to all education needs across the state.
Primary business driver for schools is around learning.
MCNC has been a wonderful partner as part of a rural broadband initiative.
Two BTOP awards have expanded the network throughout the state of North Carolina.
- Virtual Learning Community that encompasses course development, professional development, course delivery
- Faculty get access to enhanced resources
- Educate legislators -- biggest challenge -- explain why CCs need to be part of the Internet2 and state R&E network.
- Coordinate with college campus academic schedules
Created with state funding 10 years ago with 150 MB 10 years ago.
Stretching that capacity, now.
BTOP projects are going in to raise capacity.
Tied into LEARN (Texas R&E network)
Provide 25 to 75 Mb connectivity to network
- Do a lot of remote/online course work
- Do a lot of Video Conference bridging
- Continued growth by providing college courses to high school students (dual credit courses)
- This has increased the number of high school students who go on to college and complete a 2-year degree, at least.
- Nursing education is vital and it's being sent to high schools, hospitals
- Video classrooms -- connecting over 300 classrooms
- Need continues to outstrip capacity
- Collaboration and shared control of processes are greatest challenges
- External funding makes the case for doing this--when the state or feds offer funding for something like this, then the folks within the state see that it must be important.
USUCAN report by Mark Johnson, Interim Director of USUCAN project for Internet2, and Mike Roberts, Chair of the Task Force on Community Anchor Network Economic Models
- This was a great time to get funding. There have been questions about wisdom of this, but it's now or never and then build on what we have
- Consolidation of USUCAN with FCC Rural Health within Internet2
- USUCAN affiliate program being discussed--pilot will follow
(Note: Some answers were provided by others than Mark.)
Q: How can R&E's help you with outreach and when will we have a better sense of when we can get started with you. We're not sure how.
A: We need help in defining this affiliate program.
Q: How does this relate to SEGPs?
A: We roll the SEGP program into this and hopefully expand the program. It will have dedicated staff and won't be mixed with the research part. We want to understand the costs and then make decisions regarding costs, later. Unit costs should hopefully go down.
Q: What about advocates and the national office indicated in the report?
A: Not our intent to be a lobbying organization. We will be informational--providing information to people in DC.
Q: How will organizations be related to each other and will there be independent governance for USUCAN?
A: We're starting with a council. Now we're going to have eight types of organizations involved, and the issue of governance is critical. Governance of I2 is a bit top-heavy--we need some governance light. As I2 incubates things that are outside of the core mission, we need to have a way to handle this.
Q: Is there anything we in the K20 group can do during this meeting to help you out?
A: K20 could help to assure that we're representing others by giving us some names and attributes of what a successful council members would look like as well as notes on process for identifying them. Feedback on how costs should evolve would be welcome.
During the Spring 2011 Member Meeting we held a session discussing the process through which the Great Plains Network made broad support for regional cyberinfrastructure a strategic priority, and how more generally RONs provide a base for developing CI support organizations. Based on the positive response to that session we propose a follow-up discussion in which several regional CI groups associated with their RONs will compare organizational models and operational details. In the past, much of the focus on expanding cyberinfrastructure abilities and capabilities has been at the campus and national levels. Lately, there has been a trend for existing regional organizations (e.g., the Great Plains Network, SURA) to extend support to the development of regional cyberinfrastructure as a strategic priority. This panel focuses on the role of these intermediate-level organizations -- RONs, state and other regional organizations -- in advancing priorities at the campus and national levels. Participants include representatives from the Great Plains Network, SURA, RENCI as well as campus representatives who will discuss organizational models and operational details.
- Stan Ahalt , RENCI
- Paul Avery , University of Florida [pdf]
- Gary Crane , SURA
- Rich Knepper , Indiana University
- Rick McMullen , University of Kansas
- Greg Monaco , Great Plains Network
There was a great deal of interest in the topic as measured by the increase in audience from the Spring.
Some of the more interesting questions had to do with collaboration across wider distances vs state-wide or even more local (i.e., RENCI). The concensus was that face to face opportunities to get together and get to know one another are very useful to help individuals to work successfully together.