Q4 Higher Education IT WLAN Survey

Transcription

1 Q4 Higher Education IT WLAN Survey Meru Education Business Unit December, 2012

2 Study Time Period Survey Scope and Methodology December 11-31, 2012 Targeted Respondents 6,691 Response Rate 3.5% Interview Method Internet-based Self administered, open and forced choice options Geographic Distribution US Only Study Sponsor Meru Networks, Sunnyvale, California

3 802.11n Penetration Executive Summary Only 22.7% of respondents have fully migrated to.11n (.11ac migration) 65.2% have a mix of a/b/g and.11n (.11ac migration) User Wi-Fi Expectations Exceed their Campus WLAN Capabilities 55% cite pervasive indoor/outdoor Wi-Fi deployment at the end of 2012 BYOD & Guest Access 63% say that fast and easy onboarding was one of the most sought attributes in a wireless network (IDM) 39% rate onboarding guests and unregistered devices among top network challenges (IDM) Applications About 50% have deployed/evaluating AppleTV in classrooms About 25% provide federated access via eduroam WLAN budgets show strength in a weak IT budget environment 22% plan to increase LAN budgets while only 18% report an increase in IT budgets

4 45% of Respondents Report Enrollment of <5,000 How many students do you have in your college or university? 7.7% 3.9% 9.2% 11.6% 22.2% 45.4% Less than 5K 5K-15K 15K-25K 25K-35K 35K-50K More than 50K

5 77.3% Have Not Fully Deployed n Which generation of Wi-Fi equipment do you have deployed today? 12.1% a/b/g 65.2% Mixed a/b/g/n 22.7% n *

6 ~1/3 of Respondents Reported Device Growth of 26-40% YoY 1/4 of Respondents Reported Device Growth of > 50% YoY At about what rate is the number of connected mobile devices on your WLAN growing annually? Don't know 14.20% Greater than 100% % 61-75% 1.50% 3.90% 3.90% 41-60% 13.70% 26-40% 11-25% 27.00% 29.40% 0-10% 6.40%

7 32% Report <1000 Concurrent Sessions During Peak Usage About how many concurrent sessions do you see reported on your WLAN during peak usage? Don't know 14.00% > 20,00 15,000-20, % 4.30% 10,000-14,999 5,000-9, % 12.10% 1,000-4, % <1, %

8 54% Have Deployed Wi-Fi Campus Wide In the evolution of Wi-Fi adoption, where do you see your institution and campus deployment? Fault tolerant. We deploy Wi-Fi with sufficient capacity, reliability and QoS to support scaled application services across campus. 7.7% Mission Critical. We deploy pervasive Wi-Fi with sufficient hot spot capacity to handle multiple devices per user, and multimedia traffic. 16.9% Pervasive. We deploy Wi-Fi coverage campus-wide, or nearly so. 54.6% Broader use. We deploy islands of Wi-Fi in most populated areas. 14.0% Hot Spot. We deploy islands of Wi-Fi only where most needed. 6.8%

9 45% of Students Expect Wi-Fi Everywhere What do your students and other users expect from their campus Wi-Fi? Fault tolerant "I have NO TOLERANCE for Wi-Fi not working always and effectively" 15.50% Mission Critical I need Wi-Fi working well everywhere!!" 30.60% Pervasive "I have signal everywhere" 45.10% Broader use "I can find a signal nearby" 7.80% Hot Spot "I can go to the signal" 1.00%

10 87% Rate Reliable, Predictable Performance as Their Top Priority What do you look for MOST in a local area wireless network? Simple to deploy and manage easy to add or modify coverage or capacity, as needs change 68.40% Manageable easy to maintain, manage, troubleshoot and generate reports 77.20% Secure it extends existing IT security and compliance policies 68.00% Reliable, predictable performance it just works, no excuses 86.90% Fast, easy on-boarding all devices connected securely per IT policy without IT or Help Desk burden 62.60% *

11 50% Consider Unreliable, Unpredictable Performance or Connectivity the Biggest Challenge What are the biggest challenges with your Wi-Fi network? Unfair access, with some devices connecting quickly with fast downloads, while others fail to connect, or suffer 26.00% Unreliable, unpredictable performance or connectivity issues? 50.50% On boarding guests or devices onto the Wi-Fi network? Performance issues with wireless video and multimedia in classrooms? 39.30% 48.50% Wasted class time due to extended or repeated logins during class? 21.40% *

12 Most Challenging Wi-Fi Coverage, Capacity and Scalable Services is in Residence Halls and Classrooms In what area is providing reliable Wi-Fi coverage, capacity and scalable services most challenging? Outdoors Classrooms 42.60% 45.50% Stadium or Gymnasium 22.80% Student Union 14.40% Lecture Hall Library 24.80% 26.20% Residence Halls or Dormitories 51.50% *

13 27% Looking into ac in Next WLAN Refresh Cycle 71.5% may consider ac in next refresh cycle Are you currently looking into ac for your next WLAN refresh cycle? Yes 27.10% No 28.50% Don't know 44.40% *

14 85% Consider Moving to ac Because It s Evolutionary and Inevitable Why are you looking into ac? Other (please specify) 0 We have specific capacity needs which may require ac 22.60% We have specific bandwidth needs which may require ac 20.80% It s evolutionary and inevitable, as part of my WLAN refresh cycle It s part of our strategic planning process for our network 43.40% 84.90%

15 49% Have Deployed, Are Deploying or Are Evaluating AppleTV for AirPlay/AirPrint in Classrooms Does your institution support Bonjour services, such as an AppleTV on your campus to support Apple AirPlay or AirPrint? Yes, students use AppleTVs in residence halls over campus Wi-Fi 10.50% Yes, we have started to deploy AppleTVs on campus 13.60% Yes, we are evaluating AppleTV and AirPlay or AirPrint services in the classroom 34.60% No current plans 50.80% *

16 25.7% of Colleges and Universities Provide Federated Access via eduroam Do you support eduroam? Don't know 30.40% No 44.00% Yes 25.70%

17 4% Increase in WLAN Budgets over General IT Is your total IT budget changing in ? Is your Wireless LAN budget changing in ? About the same 59.20% About the same 65.40% Decreasing 22.50% Decreasing 12.60% Increasing 18.30% Increasing 22.00%

18 65% of Wireless LAN Budgets Remain Flat for 2013 Is your Wireless LAN budget changing in ? About the same 65.40% Decreasing 12.60% Increasing 22.00%

19 Disclaimer NOTE: This summary includes assumptions and predictions that may not be achieved or occur. Meru cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided in response to the survey. This document is intended to only be a summary of the survey conducted by Meru Networks, and should not be used for any other purpose. This summary does not purport to be complete, and is qualified in its entirety. The information described herein speaks only as of June 30, 2012, and except as required by law, Meru undertakes no obligation to update any of the findings, projections or statements provided herein or for any reason to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

20 K-12 Wi-Fi Network IT Survey Preliminary Summary June 25, 2012

21 Survey Scope and Methodology Study Time Period June 5 to June 18, 2012 Targeted Respondents 8,151 K-12 CIO s, VP s of IT, Directors, Network Managers and Architects Response Rate 165 School District Respondents (2% Return Rate) Respondents qualified for prize drawing. Interview Method Internet Based Self Administered, Open and Forced Choice Options Geographic Distribution 31% Eastern, 21% Southern, 28% Central, 20% West Study Sponsor Meru Networks, Sunnyvale, California

22 School District Size Diversity How many schools do you have in your school district/system?

23 802.11n Penetration Executive Summary 44% schools have yet to upgrade to high capacity n Wi-Fi Top challenge and desired capability in a Wi-Fi network 44% rate unreliable, unpredictable performance as biggest Wi-Fi challenge 58% interested in reliable, predictable performance BYOD & Guest Access 55% allow student to bring their own devices 87% interested in providing secure, low-cost guest access Applications 30% have deployed, 19% are deploying/evaluating CMS 41% have deployed/evaluating AppleTV in classrooms IT Budget While only 9% reported increase in IT budget, twice as many (19%) reported increase in WLAN budget

24 44% Have Yet to Upgrade to High Capacity n Wireless LAN Which generation of Wi-Fi equipment do you have deployed today?

25 44% Consider Unreliable, Unpredictable Performance or Connectivity as the Biggest Challenge What are the biggest challenges with your Wi-Fi network? (Choose all that apply)

26 58% Rate Reliable, Predictable Performance as the Most Desired WLAN Capability What do you look for MOST in a local area wireless network?

27 BYOD: 55% Allow Students to Bring Their Own Mobile Devices to School Do you allow students to bring their own mobile devices to school? (E.g., laptop, tablet, smartphone)

28 Guest Access: 87% Interested in Deploying Secure, Low-cost Wi-Fi Guest Access Solution If you could provide secure low-cost Guest Access to your Wi-Fi network, would you do so?

29 32% Offer Guest Access on Open Network Do you offer Wi-Fi guest access for visitors to your school?

30 49% have Deployed, Started Deploying or are Evaluating Classroom Management System Are you using or considering a Classroom Management System (CMS), such as LanSchool, for computer-based learning?

31 41% have Deployed, Started Deploying or are Evaluating AppleTV in Classrooms for AirPlay/AirPrint Are you using or considering an Apple TV in your classrooms to support Apple AirPlay or AirPrint?

32 19%Reported Increasing Wireless LAN Budget While Only 9% Reported Increasing IT Budget Is your total budget changing in ? Is your Wireless LAN budget changing in ?

33 Disclaimer NOTE: This summary includes assumptions and predictions that may not be achieved or occur. Meru cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided in response to the survey. This document is intended to only be a summary of the survey conducted by Meru Networks, and should not be used for any other purpose. This summary does not purport to be complete, and is qualified in its entirety. The information described herein speaks only as of June 30, 2012, and except as required by law, Meru undertakes no obligation to update any of the findings, projections or statements provided herein or for any reason to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.