• Created by Unknown User (jwerle), last modified on Mar 31, 2011

U.S. UCAN Town Hall – K20 Advisory Committee

March 3, 2011 

Participants:   Hud Croasdale (VT), Ryan Bass (Internet2), Catherine Mackenzie (CENIC Board, California Community Colleges), Bo Lowery (Louisville, KY), Sherilyn Evans (CENIC), Randy Stout (Kan-ed), Tim Poe (MCNC), Carol Willis (TETN), Marla Davenport (TIES-MN), Dennis Fazio (TIES), Ruth Blankenbaker (CILC), Bob Collie (ENA), Al Lind (KyRON), Hans Fiedler (ULouisville), Larry Gallery (NYSERNet), Robert Lee (UKY), Jennifer Oxenford (MAGPI), Myron Lowe (Northern Lights), Marla Meehl (FRGP), Jeff Custard (FRGP), Steve Smith (Univ. of Alaska), Tom Rolfes (U. NE), Mike Abbiatti (ARE-ON), James Werle, Heather Todorov, Mark Johnson.

(note: please let James jwerle@internet2.edu know if we missed you!)

Presenting: Mark Johnson, Interim Director, U.S. UCAN

DOWNLOAD SLIDES (4 MB)

Introduction (James):

  • Mark J. has taken on the role of Interim Director of the U.S. UCAN project- taking a break from his multiple day jobs at MCNC, as CTO and VP for Operations and Infrastructure.  I've invited Mark to join us and engage in discussion around a vision for U.S. UCAN – what it can become and how to add value to CAIs around the country.  Also a chance for us to put forth concerns that we may have and describe opportunities for how to engage.
  • U.S. UCAN doesn't include AK or HI... per Steve Smith, they don't consider it a national network until all states are represented.

Introduction (Mark J.):

  • Pointed to overview presentation (slides)... broad overview of U.S. UCAN to answer a few questions and likely stimulate a few more.  Time for conversation at the end.
  • He's on loan from MCNC for a year to help get U.S. UCAN started while the search continues for a permanent Executive Director.  Thanked MCNC.
  • Start by doing history: back in Feb 2009 when stimulus package was enacted.  At that time, no organization inside of NTIA to run a large grant program... suddenly had $4B for broadband adoption.  Their initial staff, notice of funds availability (Round 1) in July 2009.  Respondents had a short window of 6 weeks to reply.  No small effort.  After due diligence, first awards in December 09.  Second round NOFA in January 2010, informed by what they saw in the first round.  Reduced from 3 rounds -> 2 rounds.
  • NBP released by the FCC shortly afterward.  In the NBP, it's mentioned as a 'unified community anchor network'.  Internet2's proposal also included this title.  Award made in July 2010... after a good bit of negotiation, NLR withdrew from initial award.
  • US UCAN BTOP is a capital project – no operating funds. 
  • Aligned with Internet's mission for higher education, but expanded.
  • The initial staffing for U.S. UCAN.org is being provided by Internet2, MCNC, and other partner organizations (e.g., ALA).
  • In summer, Dave Lambert began planning a task force to review economic models for U.S. UCAN.  Task Force is being led by Mike Roberts.
  • CAI terminology came about in first round NOFA – ultimately, many of the awards went to middle-mile networks designed to support CAIs.
  • The U.S. UCAN proposal provides for a national infrastructure to tie together all institutions with BTOP awards, though not exclusively for BTOP awardees.  To complement work of regionals – not compete.
  • (Slide 9) - Map displayed with access points to U.S. UCAN.  Mark understands that AL and HI are special challenges – no intent to leave them out, just hasn't been solved yet.
  • Goals of the project, broadly speaking... (slide 10).  Full transparency, end-to-end performance, collaboration with the regionals, provide 100G per wave capability, etc. to support 200,000 CAIs.
  • Some BTOP awardees set up as for-profits; we'll have to learn how to deal with these more generally than in the past.
  • Question: What about the non-BTOP states? Answer: There are states with regional networks and no BTOP awards and states with no regional and no BTOP awards, both are in scope for U.S. UCAN.
  • Infrastructure program is national-scale and dependent on the regionals to connect CAIs.  Financial transparency is also a part of this model.
  • National footprint backbone owned by the community; collaboration with Northern Tier (Seattle<>Chicago); routers are 10G (for TR-CPS) and 100G capable.  Upgrade of Juniper routers at the core.
  • U.S. UCAN.org (slide 16)- Unfunded part of this project, but designed to support CAIs as Internet2 has done for the higher ed community. Build a functioning community of users.  U.S. UCAN.org will convene working groups around issues like standards, best practices, technology development.  There will be some overlap with Internet2 groups.
  • Degree of autonomy from Internet2 yet to be determined; currently operating inside of Internet2.  Modest number of staff assigned to the project.  Working on provisional budgets for future years.
  • Beginning dialog with a variety of groups (e.g.., Quilt-StateNets).  Have met with CoSN, ISTE, ALA.  Slower with community college groups because less experience there – how to make contact with community colleges?  Building on Internet2 experience in healthcare.  Meeting with public safety groups (NENA).
  • Working with the regionals to identify stakeholders and build a strong working relationship with these groups.
  • Mark named Internet2 staff assigned to various segments
  1. Regionals - Heather Todorov
  2. K12 - James Werle
  3. Health - Mike McGill, Mike Sullivan
  4. Public Safety – Walt Magnussen, Ellen Vaughan
  5. Libraries – Support from Marijka Visser and Bob Bocher, from ALA's Office for Information Technology Policy
  6. Communications – Ryan Bass from Internet2 Communications team
  • Economic Model Task Force members have been announced on U.S. UCAN web site, Mike Roberts leads the Task Force - http://www.usucan.org/about/task-force.cfm.
  • Initially, focusing on data collection.  Ex, Heather T.'s work with the regionals – how organizations are identified in various states and coordinating with the regionals.
  • No shortage of national advocacy groups – which ones are meaningful?
  • Highlight one emerging project that may be illustrative of how U.S. UCAN can get engaged.
  • 7 wireless (LTE) projects awarded in the BTOP program in various parts of the country: NTIA is encouraging these projects to work together (interoperability, technology choice); want them to interconnect with each other at a national level.  George Laskaris at NJEDge is a leader in this. We're working with them to determine needs, how share best practices, and ultimately interconnect as an "overlay" (semi-private) network not general IP network.  This is a good example of where U.S. UCAN can provide value and help them to be productive on a national scale; all in footprint of regional networks – engaging those networks with George's help.
  • Questions?

Questions:

Q: Al Lind - KyRON: What about the non-BTOP states?

A: There are states with regional networks and no BTOP awards and states with no regional and no BTOP awards, both are in scope for U.S. UCAN.

Q: Al Lind - KyRON: Which are the for-profit BTOP projects?

A: [answered as part of Al's first question, above]

Al Lind - KyRON: Is it UCAN's plan to provide commercial Internet services to all CAIs?

A: It's apparent that commercial Internet is something that CAIs want.  There are no U.S. UCAN services for now.  If desirable and could add value, would welcome feedback about this.

Q: Al Lind - KyRON: You showed a UCAN map.  What is the difference between UCAN and Internet2?

A: [unanswered on the call.  James will work on getting an answer from US UCAN staff]

Q: Al Lind - What is the difference in the new UCAN role toward CAIs and the I2 SEGP program?

A: The SEGP program is about connectivity and making it possible to connect large state network (those already connected by regionals).  The Task Force is contemplating what sort of economic models make sense.  Not necessarily a given that the SEGP program will continue "as is".  No notion of trying to charge more, but rationalizing.  One principle will be reaching through the regionals to charge participants in those regions is probably not the right thing to do.

Q: What are the outcomes of the discussions with the national groups?

A: We're at early stages, not so much outcomes [at this point] as a willingness to continue the conversation in terms of what value U.S. UCAN can bring.

Q: Sherilyn Evans - CENIC: In terms of engaging CAI's directly, what are U.S. UCAN's objectives?

A: Provide a mechanism to work on national-scale issues in the sectors – not just though advocacy groups, but with actual practitioners.

Q: What are the changes in the Universal Service Fund to which you are referring?

A:  The FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the street right now re USF, but changes not yet enacted.  Chairman Genachowksi wants USF to drive broadband adoption as opposed to traditional voice services.  Likely to be changes in terms of what services are subsidized and where money is collected for these services.  Likely to be significant changes here.

Q: What is the UCAN budget for outreach?

A: The .org effort of US UCAN is currently unfunded though Internet2 is providing initial staffing resources to being outreach activities.

Q: What will be measures for success?

A: NTIA has some measures they care about – how much money spent, how many CAIs enabled to connect (by regionals) from a U.S. UCAN perspective, active work with public safety and community colleges which haven't been engaged as deeply by Internet2 in the past).

James: Thank you, Mark, for going through these slides.  Helps us establish a baseline and understand current challenges and opportunities.  Some time left as a group.  Other comments from the group?  What's exciting about U.S. UCAN?  Concerns and challenges?

Q: (Marla Davenport) one topic piqued my interest... what are some of the new exciting opportunities we might expect as a result of this (U.S. UCAN)?

A: (Mark) biggest change is dramatic increase in capability of infrastructure that we'll have available, which enables more services and advanced services over time.  Focus on providing services that add value for CAIs.

Carol Willis: In looking at slides on piecing the puzzle, it struck me that the research parks component was included as a community.  If content providers are engaged more broadly, K20 Initiative can help bring the audience for whatever programs emerge from these communities.

Comment (Catherine Mackenzie): Engaging community colleges will be difficult because they see little value with I2 and therefore U.S. UCAN.  Any cost increases will drive dropping out of the Internet2 all together.

Catherine McKenzie: CA has about 25% of the community college population in the country.

Mark: no cost increase associated with building out the network.

Randy Stout: Is there anything further you can say about how the network architecture and obligations of BTOP project will impact the implementation of U.S. UCAN?

Mark: open interconnect or BTOP projects more generally?

Randy: You mentioned central activity was to coordinate with BTOP projects, they are under obligations to build and connect in open network architecture.  Does this have an impact on how U.S. UCAN will be established?  Or is this a technical issue?

Mark: Internet2 addressed this issue in the BTOP proposal – open access for commercial entities will be dealt with through peering with commodity services.  Doesn't mean that there won't be more private networks overlaid on network infrastructure (overlay multiple logical networks on a DWDM infrastructure).

Commercial service providers will be a big part of the picture, in that most CAIs will require services from "traditional" service providers in order to reach them.  BTOP stimulus program not enough (alone) to do the job. Must partner with the private sector.  E.g., ION in NY State organizing as a private entity to connect entities out-of-scope for NYSERNet, getting along well with NYSERNet.

Mark: For-profit vs. not-for-profit not the best litmus test as to whether to consider for connections.  Community will need to articulate the key attributes for CAIs eligible to connect.

James: Thank you Mark for joining us today.  I hope this will be the first of many opportunities to for the K20 Initiative to engage in the challenging work of ensuring US UCAN realizes its full potential to serve the many complex needs of the various CAI sectors.  The next opportunity for discussion will be at the Spring Member Meeting in Arlington (April 18th).  The morning session will be webcast.

Q: Are you willing to add more conference calls with groups of folks to talk about U.S. UCAN issues?  Can we contact you (Mark) to schedule these meetings?

Mark: yes, glad to discuss these opportunities.

  • No labels