Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Census results


Published on

A presentation from Jisc's wireless mobility event on 27 February 2019.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Census results

  1. 1. Jisc Mobility Event December 2018 A snapshot of wireless networking in the UK
  2. 2. Why are we here today? 2 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (image from @MSFTImagine)
  3. 3. Agenda 10:00 Introduction & Census results 11:30 Break 11:50 Break out session: discussing census results 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Case study: Kingston University - Ravi Jeyanolipavan & Matthew Slowe 14:30 Enabling the student experience without compromising security - Simon Mallows 15:00 Break 15:20 Getting the best from wireless devices on your WLAN - Jason Tyler 15:50 Summary from break out session and closing comments Many thanks to Cisco and Khipu who introduced us to speakers for this afternoon’s session. 3
  4. 4. Some caveats • The response was good, but still the sample size isn’t huge: we got maybe ~25% of HE, but correspondingly less of FE and the public sector. Every conclusion we draw should be viewed in terms of the sample size achieved. • Respondents mentioned company names. We are reproducing them, but this doesn’t constitute an endorsement by Jisc. Alternatives are available. 4 This is the small print…
  5. 5. Headlines findings 5 The findings show pronounced market interest in adopting new wireless services, including Jisc's access and roaming products. On-campus connectivity is considered extremely important to organisational requirements, with most also supporting visiting members of the public, and visiting associates. Though still considered important, the more mixed ratings for off-campus connectivity reflect the varied needs of different sectors and institution types. 2 3 Wireless provisioning is set to grow over the next five years, with dedicated WLAN roles developing to meet this need.1
  6. 6. Sample: institutions 6 We received a total of 75 responses from 72 individual organisations across the sectors served by Jisc. Notes on the data: •  Where duplicate responses were received from the same organisation, only the response from the most senior member of staff is included in this analysis. A total of three responses were excluded. •  61% of our responses are from HE institutions. It is therefore likely that our overall results are somewhat skewed in favour of the needs of this sector. We can be most confident of our analysis of wireless resourcing in HE, as our sample is equivalent to 28% of this sector. •  Data for each question was analysed by sector, institution type (HE and FE), respondents’ scale of wireless provision (answer to Q12) and how they rated the importance of on- and off-campus wireless provision (answers to Q49 and Q53). Note that, due to rounding, totals in this report may not always add up to 100%. 44 higher education 19 further education 8 public sector 1 research group
  7. 7. Sample: organisational typologies 7 30% 27% 18% 14% 11% HE sample Traditional and academic Modern and flexible Vocational Specialist Regionally engaged 47% 26% 11% 5% 5% 5% FE sample General large General small Sixth form General super SEND Specialist • Our sample does not precisely match the breakdown of HE and FE institutions in the UK – for instance, 30% of our HE responses are from ‘traditional and academic’ institutions but only 20% are classified as such within the sector as a whole. However, the data has not been weighted as this would too greatly impact the accuracy of our analysis for a sample of this size. • More than half of HE responses are from ‘traditional and academic’ or ‘modern and flexible’ institutions (57%). • ‘General large’ colleges dominate FE responses (47%). • We have heard from only 1 college each from the SEND, specialist, and general super categories. • Though we have a comparatively small sample of public sector organisations, it should be noted that this includes NHS trusts (63%) and councils (38%)
  8. 8. Sample: respondents 8 Nations • Overall, the majority of respondents are from English organisations (81%). •  The 14 participants outside of England are from across HE (8), FE (4) and the public sector (2). Job titles Grouping by type, respondent’s typical job titles were: • Senior staff - 2 deputy directors and 1 CIO. • Heads of IT (7), Networking (3), Infrastructure (2). • Network Engineers (7), Managers (5), Specialists (5), Analysts (3). • Infrastructure Managers (5). Only a few had job titles which specified ‘wireless’ expertise (3).
  9. 9. WLAN staffing • 22% of those surveyed have dedicated WLAN roles at their organisation. HE institutions are most likely to have dedicated roles, with 30% reporting this compared to only 11% in FE, and none in the public sector. • When asked about their wireless staffing plans over the next year, and next five years, none felt that their resourcing would decrease. o Within HE, 16% felt that their staff resource would increase over the next year, and a quarter predicted an increase in the next five years. o Only 5% of respondents in FE predicted an increase in staff resource over the next year, though this climbed to 16% when looking at the next five years. o 13% of public sector respondents predicted an increase in staff resource over the next year, but this jumped to a striking 38% when considering the likelihood of increase over the next five years. Q4. Do you have any dedicated WLAN roles in your organisation? (n=72) Q6. Is wireless staff resource at your institution likely to change in the next year/five years? (n=72) 100% 90% 71% 78% 100% 11% 30% 22% Research groups (n=1) Public sector (n=8) FE (n=19) HE (n=44) Total (n=72) Organisations with dedicated WLAN roles Yes No
  10. 10. WLAN staffing cont. Staff qualifications •  43% of respondents felt their organisation valued the Cisco track qualifications. •  The CWNP track was also valued (22%). This was especially true in HE, where it was flagged by 32% of responses. •  Few cited SANS GAWN, with only 1% overall considering it to be valuable. •  42% did not value any specific qualification. FE organisations were significantly more likely to select 'None' here (58%) •  6 respondents mentioned other qualifications o  Ekahau ECSE (3) o  Aruba certifications (2) o  Aerohive (1) We didn’t offer a ‘haven’t heard of this one’ option, so preferences may be skewed… Q5. Please specify the job titles of those in dedicated WLAN roles. (n=16) Q10. What qualifications does your organisation value in wireless-related roles? (n=72) Job titles 16 respondents specified the job titles of those in dedicated WLAN roles: •  More than half specified a focus on networking (56%), but only 3 of the named job titles mentioned ‘wireless’. •  The most prevalent roles were: •  Wireless Network Engineer (3) •  Network Technician (3) •  Network Engineer (2) •  Network Specialist (2) •  A range of job types were indicated: •  Engineer (6) •  Specialist (3) •  Technician (3) •  Analyst (2) •  Officer (1)
  11. 11. Outsourcing •  88% of respondents do not outsource any of their WLAN operation management. This was fairly consistent across all sectors. •  Only 13% outsource some aspect of the management of their WLAN, and none of those surveyed entirely outsource this work. •  When asked whether this was likely to change, most felt that this would remain the same over the next year (67%) and the remainder did not know (33%). •  This picture remained the same when considering the next five years, with 44% thinking there would be no change and 1 respondent thinking the proportion of outsourced work would decrease (11%). o  However, it should be noted that only 9 responded to this question, and so we can be less certain of this data. Q7. Do you outsource any aspect of your WLAN operation management? (n=72) Q9. Is the proportion of outsourced work likely to change in the next year/five years? (n=9) 13% 88% Outsource WLAN operation management? Yes, partially outsourced No
  12. 12. Usage: access points Participants could indicate how many APs are currently deployed by their organisation by selecting one of a set of ranges, from '50 or less' to 'over 7000’. • 31% of respondents have 101-500 APs. • Results trended at the lower end of the scale, with 63% of responses having 1000 or fewer APs. • None had more than 6000 APs. • Results varied depending on sector and institution size (see next slide). When asked whether these figures were likely to change over the next 5 years: •  The vast majority felt that the number of APs they deployed would increase in this period (90%). •  7% felt there would be no change. •  Only 1 respondent thought this would decrease (1%). Most prevalent AP range: 101- 500 Q12. How many access points (APs) are currently deployed by your organisation? (n=72) Q13. How these figures likely to change over the next year/5 years? (n=72) 1% 1% 7% 90% Next 5 years AP deployment over time Increase No change Decrease Don't know
  13. 13. Usage: access points (cont.) 43% 25% 89% 25% 33% 39% 11% 63% 24% 36% 13% Total HE FE Public sector Scale of wireless provision by sector Small Medium Large •  HE organisations were more likely to have large deployments. The most commonly selected range was 2001-3000 (27%), and this was the only sector to have over 3000 APs (9%). •  FE colleges had comparatively small deployments, with 89% having 500 or fewer APs. The number of access points indicated were further grouped to consider how scales in wireless provision might vary between sectors: Small = anything between ‘50 or less’ - 500 Medium = anything between 501-2000. Large = anything between 2001 – ‘ 7000 or more’.
  14. 14. Usage: access points (cont.) AP estate management Most respondents are managing their AP estate with an in-house team, using commercial management appliances (82%). Q14. What AP manufacturer is most deployed at your organisation? (n=69) Q15. Which of the following best describes how your AP estate is managed? (n=72) AP manufacturers • 69 respondents specified the AP manufacturers they currently use: •  Cisco was far and away the most popular, used by 65%. •  23% use Aruba, with a further 2% mentioning parent company HPE. •  There were also mentions of Meru / Fortinet (4%), Aerohive (3%), Ubiquiti (2%), Xirrus (2%), and Samsung (2%). •  Only one mentioned using more than one manufacturer, as they are currently migrating from Cisco to Aruba. The remainder are using in-house solutions (18%). None of those surveyed use an outsourced team for this work. 82% 18% In-house team - using commercial management appliances In-house team - using in-house solutions
  15. 15. Usage (cont.) 15 SSIDs • Participating organisations broadcast an average of 4 SSIDs as part of their standard production environment, although responses ranged between 2 and 12. This was the case across all sectors. • 25% feel this will increase over the next 5 years, but 24% think this will decrease. ISM frequency bands • There is roughly equal usage of 2.4GHz (99%) and 5GHz frequencies (97%). • The most commonly used frequencies, by a margin of around 20%, are: o 2.4GHz: 802.11n (86%) and 802.11g (82%) o 5GHz: 802.11n (86%) and 802.11ac (83%). • None are using 1GHz or 60GHz frequencies. • 85% do not maintain a Spectrum Management policy, but 18% are planning to. Of the 9 institutions which do (13%), 8 are from HE. Integrating WLAN with building systems For most respondents, WLAN is not a component of their building systems (85%). Only 14%* use WLAN in this way: •  11% use it to communicate with environmental sensors •  7% use it to communicate with their security system •  3% use it to communicate with CCTV systems. *14% of respondents. This takes into account those who use WLAN in multiple aspects of their building systems. Average number of SSIDs: 4 (range 2-12) Q11. How many SSIDs are broadcast in your standard production environment? (n=72) Q16. Which ISM frequency bands do you use? (n=71) Q17. Do you maintain a Spectrum Management policy? (n=72) Q18. Is WLAN a component of your building systems? (n=72)
  16. 16. Spectrum Management Policies • This is designed to: • clarify who ‘owns’ the spectrum on your estate • prevent rogue deployments occupying channels you need for future ‘official’ Wi-Fi services • develop relationships with neighbours who might also deploy wireless (alternatively, try to get your kit deployed first) • check that unrelated technologies that also use the ISM band (security systems etc.) do not limit your future wireless networking options • develop networking policies and monitoring regimes that let you police the radio environment on campus to guard your local spectrum resource. 16 Advisable for organisations to develop a formal spectrum management plan.
  17. 17. Monitoring activity and traffic 17 Q20. How do you monitor activity on your WLAN? (n=72) Q21. To which of the following data types do you have access? (n=72) Q22. Do you monitor and categorise the traffic on your WLAN? (n=72) Q23. Do you maintain an up-to-date registry of wireless hardware and locations? (n=72) •  All respondents monitor activity on their WLAN: o 92% use a management appliance dashboard o 63% use activity logs, and the graphs derived from them o When monitoring activity, most have access to current status (99%), historical usage (88%) and availability data (83%). o It was somewhat less common to have trends and patterns data (65%), management reports (61%) and capacity planning (49%), but these are still being used by a significant proportion. •  Respondents were evenly split on whether they monitor and categorise traffic on their WLAN: 50% do so, while 49% do not. •  Most maintain a registry of wireless hardware and locations (90%): more than half use a manual solution (57%), while 33% use an automated solution. Only 8% do not run a wireless registry, though 1% say that they plan to in the future. 49% 61% 65% 83% 88% 99% Capacity planning data Management reports Trends and patterns Availability Historical usage Current status Types of data accessible
  18. 18. Cybersecurity 18 59 respondents offered some insight into their current cybersecurity provision: • 9 mentioned specific cybersecurity policies or best practice guidelines in place. A further 5 refer to the 802.11x standards. • 24 mentioned their use of firewalls. • 3 referred generally to threat prevention. Other approaches mentioned: • VLAN separation (7) • Device management/protection (5) and also Endpoint protection (2) • ACLs - access control lists (6) • PEAP or EAP authentication protocols (4) • WPA2 encryption (3) • Client isolation (2) Q19. What cybersecurity provisions do you apply to your WLANs and/or corporate mobile devices? (n=59) Providers A number of specific providers were listed: •  Cisco (5) •  Mobile Iron (3) •  Sophos (2) •  Intune (2) •  Fortinet (1) •  Airwatch (1) In addition, the cybersecurity provision and support offered via the following Jisc services were mentioned: •  eduroam (2) •  Govroam (1) •  Janet (1)
  19. 19. Further comments 19 Q24. Do you have any further comments on your wireless infrastructure? (n=9) 9 participants provided some further comments on the wireless infrastructure at their organisation. 3 criticise their current provisioning are outdated, though another 2 mention an upcoming refresh (orange). Lack of resource – be it financial or staffing – is mentioned by 3 (blue). It's outdated and we're planning to replace when we have budget, which will probably be 2020. We have access to a large data set relating to use of the WLAN but have little or no resource to use that data in the ways that we/the university may like - to the organisations further benefit This survey often mentions teams. I think it's important to mention that we don't have the luxury of shared roles. I manage all wireless infrastructure, telephony and wired networks, as well as day-to-day moves and changes. At times, I am not able to allocate up to 50 percent of my time to wireless activities and I'm not able to monitor and develop the systems as much as I would like. Antiquated WLAN hardware which needs updating needs replacing We are seeing an increase in requests from researchers for this data. A greater level of investment is being planned for that will provide better management, including expansion, reporting, maintaining and security of the network. Currently undergoing a refresh - new controller infrastructure has been installed and AP refresh is ongoing We used Cisco Prime Infrastructure to managed and monitor our controllers, access points and the client devices.
  20. 20. Current services 20 Q25 Which of the following services do you currently have in place? (n=72) Q26 What are your usage levels for the selected services? •  64% use a local production WLAN. •  We also asked about the use of two core Jisc services: o eduroam is most prevalent of the named services (83%), with all HE institutions using this. o Govroam is predominantly used within the public sector (63%), with some users in HE (18%). o 10 are using both eduroam and Govroam (14%). 83% 75% 67% 64% 18% eduroam Connectivity for the visiting general public Connectivity for visiting associates Local production wireless LAN Govroam Services currently in place Usage levels Participants were asked to record their usage levels for each of the selected services as an approximate percentage (%) of total WLAN traffic. Based on the answers received it is clear that the question was unclear: some have answered in percentages and some in whole numbers. This does unfortunately limit the usefulness of this data, and due to this lack of reliability they are not considered here.
  21. 21. eduroam / Govroam 21 Q27 What best describes your participation in eduroam/govroam? (n=60/12) Q28 How many APs offer eduroam/govroam in your institution? (n=59/12) Q29 Where is eduroam/govroam available? (n=59/12) Q30 Approximately how many hours per average week are devoted to managing deployment? (n=52/11) Those that have eduroam and/or Govroam were then asked a series of optional questions about their use of these services. Note that 60 respondents were shown the eduroam questions, and 13 the Govroam questions. •  Most eduroam users are full participants (93%), with just 7% using the visited-only option. •  97% deploy pervasive eduroam, with only 2 organisations limiting availability to selected locations (3%). •  An average of 1,213 APs per organisation offer eduroam, with responses ranging from 51-5,000. •  Around 8.5 hours is spent on managing an eduroam deployment per week on average, though responses range from 0-120. •  This split is much more balanced for govroam: 58% are full participants, and 42% use the free visited-only service. •  It is more common to limit govroam to selected locations, with 42% of respondents doing so compared to 58% offering pervasive access. •  An average of 1,134 APs per organisation offer govroam, with responses in the range 2-2,800. •  Only an average of 2.4 hours per week is spent on maintaining a govroam deployment, with a fairly small range of responses, 0-14 hours.
  22. 22. Govroam – not just for government 1. Support public sector visitors • Maybe your local MP holds regular surgeries on campus or there is an NHS practice based on campus for your students, or regular visits from a blood donation scheme. Possibly you have community police officers based on campus or regular drop-in sessions by a liaison officer. All of these functions can be made more efficient and delivered with lower overhead to the educational organisation by making the ‘zero touch’ connectivity option of govroam available to your visitors. 2. Encourage reciprocity • There’s potential for a virtuous circle in the world of federated roaming, with educational sites increasing the available footprint of govroam, and public sector venues similarly offering eduroam coverage in relevant locations. 3. Facilitate outreach • Education organisations are at the heart of their communities, and play a role in many large scale community activities. As a result they frequently have to liaise with other public services in both the planning and delivery of events. 22 Jisc strongly recommends that education organisations with eduroam also carry the visited-only form of govroam alongside it
  23. 23. Public and guest users: provision 23 Q25 Which of the following services do you currently have in place? (n=72) Q31. How do you provide connectivity for the visiting public? (n=54) Q33. Do you charge public users for wireless connectivity? (n=53) Q34. Is connectivity for visiting associates offered via the same mechanism as general public access? (n=48) Q35. Do you offer wired ports with eduroam/govroam authentication for guest users? (n=57) Three-quarters of respondents provide connectivity for the visiting general public, and 67% do so for visiting associates The 54 respondents who provide connectivity for the visiting general public (Q25) were then asked a series of focused questions: •  Respondents are most likely to provide connectivity to the visiting public through an in-house solution supported by a vendor platform (39%). •  Of the remainder, roughly equal proportions provide visitor connectivity through an entirely in-house solution (17%), a partnership arranged via Jisc procurement (15%), or a partnership with their local WISP (11%). •  Only 4% of respondents charge public users for wireless connectivity. •  Wired ports for authentication are rarely offered: only 5% of eduroam providers do this, and none of the Govroam providers. However, 12% of eduroam organisations do provide wired 802.1x ports. Visiting associates 48% of those who provide connectivity for visiting associates do this through the same mechanism as general public access. 52% use a different mechanism, mostly in-house solutions (40%). Of those who selected 'other’, 3 specified what they have in place: •  Sky 'The Cloud’ •  Cisco captive portal / Cisco solution for guests •  Eduroam (eVA?)
  24. 24. Visitors vs. Associates Associate visitors Somewhere between federated visitors and the general public are visitors who have some association with your college or university. You might know something about them in advance and could offer a more comprehensive network experience than you would to a stranger. The litmus test here is whether they are visiting because yours is an education organisation – for example to collaborate with a specific researcher on your staff, make use of a unique facility or collection, or attend an academic conference you are hosting. If, however, they are on campus to visit a café or to stay in student accommodation during holidays, then presumably any other café or hotel locally would do just as well. You therefore can’t argue that providing enhanced connectivity services to them is linked to your educational mission. If an associate visitor passes this test, then it is likely that you may provide them with extended network services, such as eduroam Visitor Access without risking your status as a private network. Were you to provide such services to a member of the public, you risk your network as a whole being classed as public, and incurring various legal responsibilities as a result. 24 When the public comes calling…
  25. 25. Public and guest users: authentication and tracking 25 • 70% gather personal data about their public users at the point of use. • 95% eduroam members use username/password credentials to authenticate their users, with a slightly lower proportion of Govroam members doing so (82%) • Most do not have any automated client posture checks in place (89%). Only 6% do, with the same proportion saying that they don't know either way. Q32. Do you gather personal data about public users at the point of use? (n=54) Q36. How do you authenticate your members? (n=60/11) Q39. Do you use wireless data to track user location or movement? (n=71) Q40/41. Why do you/don't use location awareness? (n=10/37) Q48. Do you have any automated client posture checks in place? (n=72) Location tracking Only 14% use wireless data to track the location or movement of their users. Security is the most cited reason why (60%). However, a further 32% say they plan to do this in the future. Of those not using location tracking, 78% felt this simply was not needed.
  26. 26. Other services 26 Participants were asked whether they use services in certain key areas: • VoIP is the most prevalent, with 63% currently using this service. • IoT is currently being used by 24%. These include smart building sensors (29%) and campus CCTV (12%), but most specified ‘other’ options (59%). o 9 comments described these ‘other’ services. More than half mentioned smart devices (56%), and there were single mentions of 'student projects, 'attendance monitoring and room booking', 'telescope control' and 'laundries, CCTV etc.' • These responses also highlighted areas which might receive future investment. 27% are planning to introduce IoT services, and around 2 in 10 are considering VoIP, LoRA or near field communication. Q42. Do you use services in the following areas? (n=71) Q43. Which of the following IoT services do you currently use? (n=17) 6% 9% 11% 8% 4% 4% 88% 73% 73% 72% 60% 44% 18% 6% 17% 6% 6% 19% 27% 18% 2% 10% 14% 16% 24% 63% Satellite LoRa Wireless enabled vending machines Wireless device mediated access control Near field communication IoT tech VoIP Yes No, but planning No Don't know
  27. 27. Technical support 27 Support availability •  Most respondents offer technical support during working hours only (68%). •  An equal number offer weekday support, or 24/7 support (13%) •  7% mentioned ‘other’ support services: o 2 offer 24/7 support for critical issues only. o 2 offer online support only outside of working hours. o 1 offers extended support hours to students in the library. Support services •  All respondents have a general ICT support desk for their users. •  In addition, 61% also provide online support documents. •  It’s more unusual for institutions to offer wireless-specific support - either through a dedicated support desk (7%) or Wi-Fi surgeries (7%). •  Only 4% of participants have customer champions. •  2 respondents mentioned ‘other’ support: ‘workshops’ and ‘departmental IT contacts’. Q44. What support services do you offer to users? (n=72) Q45. What is your support availability? (n=72) 68% 13% 13% 7% Support availability Working hours only 24/7 hours Weekdays only Other 3% 4% 7% 7% 61% 100% Other Customer champions Wireless-specific support desk Wireless-specific surgeries Online support documents General ICT support desk Support services
  28. 28. Personal mobile devices 28 Q46. Does your organisation support BYOD wireless connectivity? (n=72) Q47. Approximately how many personal devices does your organisation support? (n=47) Support for BYOD More than three-quarters of participating organisations support BYOD wireless connectivity (78%). This was particularly pronounced in HE, where 93% of institutions support BYOD. This compares to only 13% of those in the public sector. On average, these organisations support 22,388 unique devices in a typical month. However, this ranges from 150-280,000. The sectors diverge significantly: the average number of devices supported within HE is 31,354, compared to only 4,067 in FE. 78% 21% 1% Support BYOD wireless connectivity? Yes No Don’t know 93% 74% 13% 5% 26% 88% 2% HE (n=44) FE (n=19) Public sector (n=8) BYOD support by sector Yes No Don't know
  29. 29. 3% 7% 90%On-campus Unimportant Slightly important Moderately important Important Very important Perceived importance of wireless provision (on-campus) 29 Q49. Thinking about your organisation’s requirements, how important is on-campus wireless connectivity? (n=72) Q50. Why do you consider on-campus wireless connectivity to be x? (n=53) On-campus •  90% consider on-campus wireless connectivity to be 'very important' to their organisation's requirements, with a further 7% considering this 'important’. •  53 participants explained their rating. o  42% felt that Wi-Fi was becoming the most-prevalent way of accessing the network. o  32% said that users simply expect this to be available. o  23% cited the increased use of mobile devices and technologies, both personally-owned and provided by the organisation. o  Flexible working was raised by 17%, while others specified flexible learning (17%) and flexible teaching styles (13%).
  30. 30. 19% 19% 17% 26% 18%Off-campus Unimportant Slightly important Moderately important Important Very important Perceived importance of wireless provision (off-campus) 30 Q53. Thinking about your organisation’s requirements, how important is off-campus wireless connectivity? (n=72) Q54. Why do you consider off-campus wireless connectivity to be x? (n=52) Off-campus • Results were more mixed for off-campus connectivity: 44% consider it ‘important’ or ‘very important’, but 19% find it ‘unimportant’. • FE colleges were significantly more likely to rate off-campus connectivity as unimportant (32%) • Some types of HE institution value off-campus connectivity more than others. ‘Traditional and academic' (85%) and ‘business engaged' (60%) institutions were more likely to select ‘important’ or ‘very important’, while 'small/specialist' institutions were least likely to choose these top ratings (17%). This might be a reflection of the kind of work being done by these organisations, in particular the prevalence of off-campus collaborations. 55 respondents explained their rating: ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’ (26): 42% enable work at multiple sites and/ or support visitors. Flexible working and staff/student mobility was also a key consideration (27%). 19% feel that off-campus connectivity is expected by their users, with 15% pointing out the impact on a positive student experience. ‘Moderately important’ (8): although 1 commenter said that their staff/ students don't travel, the rest of the comments were positive. 2 say their users do work elsewhere (25%). When it comes to access, 38% need connectivity at other sites, while 25% have to provide off-site access to institutional resources. ‘Unimportant' or 'slightly important' (18): 33% consider off-campus connectivity low priority. 11% specify that there is simply no demand, while others point out that users have their own Wi-Fi access arrangements (22%) or else rarely work elsewhere (17%). There were also 2 positive comments, mentioning that off-site access to institutional resources was needed (both gave ‘slightly important’ ratings).
  31. 31. Coverage and uses 31 Network provisioning varies between organisations: • 51% do not offer point-to-point links between buildings and campuses, roughly equal to the 47% who currently provide these (43%), or plan to (4%). • 4 in 10 have wireless-only areas of campus, with a further 10% expecting these in future. • 35% have reduced the number of wired connection points in favour of wireless provision. There is evidence that this trend will continue to grow, as 19% say they plan to do this. • The strongest consensus is regarding the (lack of) demand for wireless-free areas on campus, with 90% saying they do not have this. Q51. Does your institution provide any of the following? (n=72) 1% 4% 1% 1% 90% 42% 50% 51% 3% 19% 10% 4% 6% 35% 39% 43% Wireless-free areas on campus Reduced number of wired connection points in favour of wireless provision Wireless-only areas of campus Point-to-point links between buildings/ campuses Yes No, but planning to No Don't know
  32. 32. Promoting the network 32 Q52. Do you promote your on-campus wireless network(s)? (n=70/57) 53% 5% 9% 16% 37% 77% 1% 2% eduroam Govroam Promotion of on-campus networks Yes No, but planning to No Don't know The institutions surveyed were more likely to promote eduroam than govroam. It should be noted that this is likely a reflection of our sample, which favours education organisations. • More than half of respondents currently promote eduroam (53%), and 9% plan to in the future. 64% of HE institutions are promoting eduroam. • Overall, only 5% currently promote govroam, though this jumps to a quarter in the public sector. However, 16% across all sectors have indicated that they plan to do so.
  33. 33. Partnerships 33 Q55. Does you organisation have any wireless partnerships in place? (n=72) Q56. Please detail the nature of these partnerships. (n=23) Close to a third of organisations have some kind of wireless partnership in place (described in the survey as ‘e.g. with local organisations or service providers?’). . 32% 64% 4% Wireless partnerships Yes No Don't know 23 described the nature of these partnerships •  8 (35%) provide Wi-Fi locally, for instance to hospital sites (4), the city centre, bus stations and other public spaces. 1 also mentioned providing Wi-Fi to third-party organisations who use on-campus facilities. •  6 (26%) have shared infrastructure arrangements, though these vary in nature. •  6 (26%) mentioned Sky’s Cloud service. •  8 (26%) mention eduroam in the context of these partnerships, and 1 mentioned govroam.
  34. 34. Interest in current Jisc mobility services 34 Participants were asked about their interest in the four Jisc access and roaming services: Already using • eduroam was by far the most commonly used of the named services, with 82% of organisations subscribing. o All HE participants are using eduroam. This compares to 63% in FE, and 29% within the public sector. o Very few are using eVA - eduroam Visitor Access (2%). Respondents are least interested in eVA for the future (69%), though this considerably higher within 'modern and diverse’ (46% interested) and 'traditional and academic’ HE institutions (50% interested) • Around 2 in 10 subscribe to govroam (19%) or use public Wi-Fi contracts (24%). Q57 Would any of the following Jisc products or services be of interest to you? (n=71) 37% 39% 24% 69% 30% 2% 38% 43% 19% 12% 6% 82% Not currently of interest Yes, interested Already have Interest in Jisc services eduroam Govroam eVA Public wifi
  35. 35. Final comments 35 Q58 Do you have any further comments on wireless technology at your institution, or Jisc's work in this space? 10 participants provided further comments. These mostly relate to Jisc’s work in this space (orange), plus a small number of general comments (blue). 3 comments relate to the best-practice resources Jisc can offer to the community. We currently use The Cloud but will be looking to review the contract shortly. About to undertake a step change in provision incorporating a number of new initiatives and person-centred solutions. Links to transport providers and council space but watch the 5G operators There is a very good community of wireless engineers/administrators who can and do exchange their thoughts and ideas online. Conferences like Networkshop and other specialist conferences, including the one for this census are very valuable resources the need to be funded and continue to happen. The JISCMAIL (WIRELESS-ADMIN) lists are a very useful resource. It would be nice to see partnerships between JISC and other like-minded organisations such as the CWNP and the WLAN Association. We are keen to understand more about the enterprise Wi-Fi strategy of our peers to ensure we are offering a state-of-the-art Wi-Fi service to our clients, and therefore welcome Jisc's strategy to share best practice across the Education sector. We have in the past looked at the provision of public Wi-Fi via TheCloud over Janet, and would still be interested in this or a similar service that would allow public Wi-Fi traffic to traverse our Janet connectivity (within a VPN back to the service provider). We currently provide an Events/ Conference service which uses a separate internet link (most heavily used when our halls are used by non-students over the summer). Public Wi-Fi would be very useful for the Public who come on site, but wouldn't want to have to pay for the additional services. Don't know what eVA is. Currently looking at SWANRoam (Govroam over SWAN). It would be interesting to have eduroam, however as we do not have the requirement it isn't a priority for us. Also with a small IT team there isn’t the time/expertise to focus on introducing and maintaining a non-essential service. I'd really like to see case studies on lower cost Wi-Fi providers, like Mikrotik, and Unifi gear. I'm really missing some of the Buxey freeradius tips and hints. I believe Jisc should be working and encouraging EAP-TLS
  36. 36. Further information 36 Mark O’Leary, Head of Network Access Mark.O’ Lola Harre, Research Manager The results of this survey will be published in full (anonymised) on the Jisc website at:
  37. 37. Breakout session • Please break into groups of ~8 per table • You’ll have a member of the Jisc team at each table • They will have some questions about the survey results to kick off a conversation • … and they will take some notes • This is your chance to feed back to us and influence our roadmap of future services 37 After coffee… (11:50)