[committee] Clarification of AARNet charging model

[Scott Young]

Hi guys,

Here's an update as to what's happening with the new AARNet charging model.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM, James Andrewartha
<trs80 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Re-reading http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/ucc/attachments/20090317/fab7ab3e/attachment-0005.pdf
> it seems we get charged twice for off-net traffic - in the first year it's
> $15/GB up to the nomiated value, and $30/GB thereafter, and in the second
> year it's the annual subscription fee based on the previous year's off-net
> usage, in the 10GB bands at $15/GB.

This is more or less correct.

According to ITS, the University is charged separate subscription fees
(based on the previous quarter's usage) for both on-net and off-net
usage. Additional charges apply for off-net usage. However, until now
affiliates (like us) have not been charged for on-net usage, so the
University loses money, especially on those affiliates who don't use
any off-net traffic at all (and therefore, until now, have paid zero
fees).

The subscription fee model is ITS's way of trying to 'fairly'
distribute the cost of the subscription fees amongst affiliate
members. Apparently, "you win some, you lose some": we have no option
to have the subscription fee reduced in light of the fact that we
anticipate substantially reduced off-net usage this year.

I was told that basing the subscription fee on last year's off-net
usage was the fairest way of doing things, because basing it on
nominated usage would encourage people to nominate 0 GB usage and
avoid the subscription fee. Having considered this, I think basing the
subscription fee on off-net usage probably is the fairest way of doing
things, but I still disagree pretty strongly with being charged
retroactively for usage which occurred prior to the implementation of
the new charging model.

I'll touch on this at tomorrow's committee meeting, but hopefully
everyone will have a chance to read this beforehand. I think we should
continue charging members at $35/GB for usage of the AARNet
connection. We may end up losing a little money this way (if we
overstate our 'nominated usage'), but we're more likely to make a
small profit.

We can write a letter of complaint to ITS, but I'm not sure if it's
worth the effort. I spoke to Maxine Gamble about all this, who is the
Business Manager at ITS, and she already indicated that the
subscription fee wouldn't be reduced. There's really only one person
senior to Maxine (John Arfield, University Librarian / Director of
ITS) and I don't think he's likely to see the situation any
differently. Plus, as some members have noted, UCC isn't a
particularly major player as far as use of the AARNet connection goes,
and it's not like we can threaten to get our internet access from
elsewhere...

[SJY]