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

1. Jisc Mobility Event
December 2018
A snapshot of wireless networking in the UK

2. Why are we here today?
2
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (image from @MSFTImagine)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Further
information
36
Mark O’Leary,
Head of Network Access
Mark.O’Leary@jisc.ac.uk
Lola Harre,
Research Manager
Lola.Harre@jisc.ac.uk
The results of this survey will be
published in full (anonymised) on
the Jisc website at:
https://ji.sc/wireless-mobility

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)