About Us About Us
Products & Services Products & Services
Services for Departments for Faculty and Staff
Services for Residents for Residents
Services for non-UCSB Groups for Non-UCSB Groups
Infrastructure Infrastructure Services
Directories Directories
Reference Information Reference Information
Reference Information About This Site


Communications Services My Account | Contact Us
view site map contact Communications Services staff
  CommServ > Reference > Background > TAC Potential Agenda Items

TAC Potential Agenda Items

August 30, 1995

The following list of potential agenda items was prepared by the staff of Communications Services. The items are not listed in priority or chronological order, but the first two items will most likely be on the agenda of the committee's first meeting.

  1. Presentation by Communications Services' staff on the current telephone system, reasons for moving to a new system and tentative schedule for implementation of the new system.
  2. Communications Services' plan to meet requests for new telephone lines after January, 1996.
  3. Review of the results of the interviews of departmental representatives to determine their telephone needs.
  4. Presentations from vendors of telephone switches on the features, capabilities and limitations of current technology. Prior to the presentations, the committee should have a presentation by Communications Services' staff on the emerging applications and standards (e.g., Computer Telephony Integration, TAPI, TSAPI and TMAP) that support the interoperability of telephone switches and personal computers.
  5. Decide if the residents of UCSB housing should be supported by the new system. If so, this would be a large commitment of capital, so we should develop a recommended policy statement stating that if residents want telephone service they can obtain it only via the campus telephone system (and not from an off-campus vendor). Decide if we should continue to have differential rates for business and residential telephone service.
  6. Identify the unique telecommunications requirements of Housing & Residential Services, especially Conference Services' requirements.
  7. Decide if we should eliminate or include Centrex as an option in the RFP.
  8. Discuss the implications of using a monolithic architecture versus a distributed architecture, including space requirements, personnel time needed to maintain each type of architecture and potential cost of reconfiguring the underground cable plant.
  9. Should the new system support data communications extensively, or only incidentally?
  10. Should the new system support switched video communications for distance learning and collaborative computing?
  11. Should we hire a consultant to assist in the development of the RFP and selection of the new system?
  12. Should we visit or consult with other UC campuses or other universities to gain insight into their directions for communications systems?
  13. Discuss the potential implications of pending legislation (e.g., House of Representatives bill 1555) and Public Utility Commission orders on open competition for telecommunications in the future.
  14. Discuss the implications of acquiring proprietary digital telephone instruments compared to staying with conventional analog instruments.
  15. Discuss the intended life cycle of the new system, especially the impact on recharge rates, the cost of system upgrades and the possibility of being locked into a specific technology depending on if we use an extended life cycle (10-15 years) compared to a "standard" life cycle (7-10 years).
  16. Communications Services' budget includes at least 2.0 FTE to handle recharge billing. Should our current recharge rate philosophy be continued or should it be modified in some way (recharging for the telephone line, local calls and long distance calls versus some or complete core funding) when the new system is implemented?
  17. Should expansions of the underground cable plant to support new buildings continue to be recharged to the building's budget or should the expenses be assumed in the telephone cost center operating overhead?
  18. What functions that Communications Services now performs can and should be "outsourced" to other departments or off-campus vendors (e.g., adding new telephone lines by departmental or college personnel, or billing services performed by the telephone system vendor or other commercial organization). Would outsourcing of services improve or degrade the costs to departments and the elapsed time to complete work?
  19. Should campus departments, colleges or divisions be allowed to acquire and operate their own telephone systems or should telephone service remain a centralized utility?
  20. Do we want to consider the use of personal computers as telephone systems?
  21. Discuss whether or not the new system should be used to extend service to all members of the campus community (faculty, students, staff, affiliates) in their residences off-campus as a way of increasing revenue to the campus.




University of California Santa Barbara Home Page
Copyright © 2003-2019 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved
Web contactTerms of UseAccessibilityPrivacy
Last modified: 10/3/2013