Don't rush to find a supplier. Think about it.
Many schools mention the WiFi billing at campus, and the first reaction is to open up computers to find a few companies. But in fact, before contacting any supplier, one more fundamental thing has to be thought out: whether this system will be built itself or it will be left to operators.
This is a choice that looks just..."Who's paying for it?"But it's far more than that.——The network is managed by whom, by who, by who, by who, and by who, by what, by what means and by what means, every year. This is all tied up with this decision. Wrong choice, then there's endless nonsense behind it.
Self-built model, which type of school
Self-build means that the school itself purchases equipment, maintains its own system and collects money.
This model is suitable for several types of schools: one with sufficient bandwidth and no less expensive schools, such as some research-type higher education institutions or more well funded units; the other is an IT-vim team with a certain size, with its own network centre and capacity to handle daily maintenance of the system.
The best thing to do is that the initiative is in the hands of the school.
But the cost of self-building is also real: there are not many things to do, such as purchasing equipment, building wiring, and machine-rooming. There is a need to maintain them, pay for their own bandwidth, and take their own turn for trouble. For schools without dedicated support teams, this road is difficult to walk.
The operator's model of cooperation. How can we talk about it?
The logic of the operator’s cooperation is simple: operators are able to provide bandwidth, help with school networks, participate in a set operation, and schools provide student user resources, divided according to proportion. This model is common in higher education institutions, especially those where operators sell mobile phone cards.
This model is less stressful for schools, but there are lots of pits."Gross income"Not at all."Net income"The operator also charges the cost of marketing his own input, and the share of the school is so small. I've seen the price-fixing rights in the hands of the operator, the school is totally passive, the students are expensive, the school wants to lower prices, the operators disagree.
In another case, the fault liability is not well defined. Students are out of network, operators say it's a core switch for schools, schools say it's BRAS for operators, kick each other's leather balls and students suffer in the middle.
Where are the real points of division between the two modes?
The true differences between the two models are concentrated on these matters.
The student data is owned by the school itself. The data are in the hands of the school; operators cooperate, often share or back up with the operator, which involves questions about privacy compliance.——If these issues are not clearly addressed before the signing of the contract, then there will be endless friction.
There is another dimension that is wrong about who's responsible. If you build it, the school will do it itself, and the operator will work together to define the time of failure and the boundaries of responsibility in a contract, but often the borders are not so clear when they actually go through.
When new accommodations or networks are upgraded, who will bear the costs and how inputs are converted into a subsequent share, which is also to be agreed in advance of the framework for cooperation.
It's not a choice.
Not all schools are required to choose one. Some of the practical approaches are mixed: basic networks are maintained by school construction and fee-based certification systems operate themselves, but export bandwidths are procured in cooperation with operators, and package operations introduce a share of operators.
The advantage of this approach is that schools retain control over the system, that student data are not drained, and that costs of export bandwidth can be shared by operators. The disadvantage is that management complexity increases, with a clear interface between the two systems and the division of responsibilities. This model suits secondary-sized schools with certain IT capabilities but not all of their own broadband costs.
In the end,
There is no standard answer for self-build or operator cooperation. But there is one principle to be taken into account: to sequence your core claims first——Data security? The lowest cost? Or absolute management? After the sequenced order, you go to the supplier and then the decision is taken in the direction of the vendor rather than being taken with it.