[AG-USERS] Funding model request

[Ed Ritenour]

Hi Cindy

Your ideas and views fall right in line with the other responses I have
received regarding funding for operation, as well as my beliefs.  Your sharing
idea is also something we looked at  from the beginning and currently use to
help support the operation. In our case the AG room was originally setup by
the visualization group, however once upper level  computing science
management and researchers began using the room to conduct business they
realized that using their visualization development staff for operational
purposes was poor use of developers time. So, along came the idea to turn the
operation over to the Laboratory services division and since I run the video
conferencing service, bingo. Since the room was setup by visualization, high
resolution rear screen mount projectors were used, which are a bit pricey to
maintain, so operational funding needed a little assistance. The projectors
are on a video switch so they can be easily switched to either groups systems.
Because the Access Grid is still in its infancy as well as support for
multicast, we felt we could not provide a quality service for the Lab as a
whole, so it was agreed to operate the room for computing sciences and track
success and failures for all conferences. Since usage was expected to be low
early on, along with the training ramp up time needed for the operators, money
was provided to operate the service for year.

As for scheduling priorities between the vis group and us this has not been a
problem to date, also we continue to work together reconfiguring the room to
better meet the needs of the various users. The two groups have access to the
room scheduler and all involved with the grid room are on the same Ag mailer.

I also agree charging for service at least early on would be detrimental to
the marketing of the Access Grid services. The first idea was to simply charge
by the hour like we do for our the H320/H323 rooms. By the way our Lab is
different than most as we charge for all services. I just paid $2k just to get
an estimate that the job would cost $10k from facilities.  But because we have
charged for videoconferencing for so many years we know any fee chases people
away. We only charge $58 per hour for the room, you can have as many people in
the room as you want, because we get our bridging free from Esnet the cost is
the same whether its point to point or mutipoint. The hourly rate covers
making the reservation, working with the remote sites to determine a time slot
and making the connection  on the day of the conference. After that video
coordinator can walk away. For large conferences where we set up another
meeting room for video conferencing or for all day usage I am constantly
bartering on price. When you consider that the AG node requires constant hand
holding and the skill set of the operator must be significantly greater than
for a H320 operator and couple that with maintaining three servers, projectors
and audio equipment then add in an additional hour for testing for every
meeting, the hourly rate must be significantly higher to break even,
especially if usage is low. So if $58 will chase them away today and it does,
you can imagine what a significantly higher rate will do.  I favor the group
overhead funding approach as well, but we are research labs and constantly
vying for researchers to come our way along with their grant money. The first
thing they look at is tax rate. Overheard is funded via a tax rate, so the
institution has to keeps its tax low to win the business if you will. Hence,
the push to go with recharge and only charge the people who use it. There is
pro's and cons with both methods. With that said we continue to explore ways
to share the room with other Lab provided services as well as other means for
obtaining funding, as a service cannot be recharge and also receive overhead
money, another bummer.  Like others, grants, travel budgets are all
considered. But, most importantly we must demonstrate that the Access Grid is
an enhanced collaboration tool and not just a videoconference no matter the
method of funding.

Guess I got a bit wordy, sorry about that.
Ed

Cindy Sievers wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> I am also very interested in this topic. This is also become somewhat of a
> big issue here at LANL as well.  While most of the interest is within the
> Advanced Computing division, other divisions and groups are starting to
> express interest.  One line of thinking is to turn over the Access Grid to
> the video/teleconferencing group and charge the same rates for AG
> participation as we do for a regular video/teleconference.  Personally, I
> don't think this is a good direction to take, since one of the major
> objectives of the AG is to promote informal spontaneous
> communications.  Also, with the introduction of AG2.0, we will be seeing
> more interactive sharing of resources (vizualizations, graphics,
> datasets).  The problem is that while the AG can be used only for
> meetings,  it has so much more potential.  If we start viewing the AG as
> only a tool to facilitate meetings then we lose the capacity to do all the
> other cool stuff.   We are looking at recharge rates, but the question
> arises - who do you charge?  If there is a joint collaboration between
> several groups here at LANL who wish to have an AG conference with 10-15
> other sites, who pays for the grid?  We could theoretically charge each
> participant by the hour, regardless of how many other people are in the
> group.....ick.  I think this would discourage AG usage.  I favor the model
> whereby the grid is paid for out of some sort of group overhead and what we
> provide is a service that may be used by any group or individual. I think
> this would promote expanded usage of the AG, not only for meetings and
> collaborations, but for shared resources and vizualization as well.   How
> do you charge for that type of service??? Then setting priorities is the
> issue......
>
> At 11:07 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, Ed Ritenour wrote:
> >Hello all
> >
> >We at Berkeley Lab are in the process of looking at various funding
> >models to support lab wide use of our Access Grid room. Currently the
> >room and operation is paid for and used mostly by Computing Sciences and
> >we would like to promote its usefulness to other divisions and therefore
> >looking at ways to share the expense. I am interested in how other
> >institutions handle their operations. If you have a few moments could
> >some of you provide information regarding AG operational funding for
> >your sites. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ed Ritenour
> >Phone: 510-486-5754
> >Data Communications/ Facilities                          Pager:
> >510-539-1069
> >Network & Telecommunications Department         Fax: 510-486-7000
> >              Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> >              One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA. 94720
> >                          MS 50E-101
>
> ============================================
> Cindy Sievers           Los Alamos National Laboratory
> sievers at lanl.gov        Group CCS-1 MS B287
> tel:505.665.6602        Advanced Computing
> fax:505.665.4939        Los Alamos, NM 87544
> ============================================

--
Ed Ritenour                                                         Phone:
510-486-5754
Data Communications/ Facilities                          Pager: 510-539-1069
Network & Telecommunications Department         Fax: 510-486-7000
             Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
             One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA. 94720
                         MS 50E-101