**UNAPPROVED DRAFT**

March 14, 2000
1:30pm Conference Call

IHETS Board Room
714 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN

Present: Ellen Watson, ISU Chair; Elaine Bennington, Ivy Tech State College; Wayne Bohm, USI; Carl Koenig, Vincennes University; Fred Nay, Ball State University; Neil Vines, Purdue University; Barrie Zimmerman, Indiana University; Scott Beauregard, Tim Fisher, Nancy Millichap, Jennifer Ping, Tim Ping, Susan Scott, Kevin Siminiski, Ed Tully, Betty Hart, IHETS staff

Chair Ellen Watson called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

1 & 2. Future Direction for IHETS and IHETS Budget for the next Biennium

Watson opened the meeting by discussing the impact of the IHETS budget. Vines commented that the subsidy issue makes him very nervous and also added that he was concerned about the levels of service.  He followed by asking whether the individual institutions could choose to either break off and operate individually or take part in the consortium and associated subsidies.  It was confirmed that the management committee would be the body that would make this decision.

Vines sees non-subsidized and poor subsidy dollars in video conferencing. Koenig responded that he strongly feels that we should not do away with the subsidy, as this approach would be a big departure from the past and much harder to deal with than the alternatives.  Bohm agreed that the issues do becomes more crucial as the network scales and suggested that maybe we need to investigate something different, since he said “Who can afford a DS3?”  Tully responded by asking who could not afford not to have a DS3 in the next few months. He added that exponential growth continues, and the rate of growth itself is not slowing down. He questioned whether it would be productive for the universities seek out their own support individually, and if indeed they could each find their own subsidy sources equal to what the group brings to the table.

Zimmerman volunteered to investigate more in-depth what new technologies are available. Bennington mentioned that the usage fees are somewhat unequal, since some institutions use more than others. Koenig asked regarding the breakdown of the $1M subsidy last year, and was told that over and above connection costs much went into developmental grants and training.  Bennington asked why IHETS did not go out to the telcos to seek lower pricing at an earlier date.

Watson mentioned that she saw significant value in the way our current consortium structure promotes overall levels of service and resource sharing. Vines said that he could foresee how a greater overall volume of users would bring prices down; he added that we need to look at the long-term strategy-- how we want the network to look like in 2-3 years should be what drives today’s decisions.

We are in the process of preparing the biennium budget for the next 2 years and establishing what the priorities are. Can we live with a 2-year commitment? Koenig agrees in looking balance, Nay receive service levels. Susan Scott figuring out.

3. The envisioned direction for the State Network and its impact on Higher Education

Tully reported that he is currently working with Smithville Telephone Company to deliver local services. He is in the process of writing a contract with Ameritech.  Our 2.5M debt should be paid off fairly soon after going into the black. Lower pricing or an increase in services to the consortium should ensue. This is the kind of thinking that we will be bringing to the table for the biennium request.

 Watson called on Zimmerman to comment on this since he has had more past experience with the legislators. He replied that Tully’s plan was a good approach and in looking ahead it did have planning in it.

Bohm stated we need to look at the dollars, before the board meeting April 13^th and how this will effect USI, along with our predictions for the next 3 years. Nay and Bennington reported that they both expect to double bandwidth at their institutions. The consensus was everyone would be able to do their own calculations with the spreadsheets that they have today.

Tully and Watson mentioned that it will be significant that there are several new university presidents, since we will be asking for an unprecedented 20% –25% increase, and will again ask in the following year for a 30% – 40% increase, whereas our standard has been a 3% - 4% increase. Either way is roughly the same, the institutions will have to either increase own budgets or IHETS will have to have support to increase the subsidy. Tully said the purpose of item 3 is for cloud services.

Tully restated that the suggested proposal is to request additional $1M dollars for a total of $2M from the legislature for each of the years in the 2001-2003 biennium. In the second year, IHETS will also request an additional $1M dollars to accommodate Internet2 access.

You may contact Ed Tully with comments or further discussion via Email or by phone at 317.263.8922.

Nay once again stated that IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame do not participate, and stands firm in favor of his suggested FTE proposal.

Vines shared that network provides a statewide educational market and that this is not institutional money but consortium money.

Tully once again explained options A and B and stated what we are trying to accomplish and provide is a common platform from IHETS.

The discussions continued surrounding options A and B laid out on the spreadsheet and restating that the 56k circuit is not cost effective.

Watson asked Tully to poll the audience on option B, the results is listed below:

·        Bennington  – Yes

·        Bohm – Yes

·        Koenig – No response

·        Nay – No

·        Vines – Yes

·        Watson – Yes from ISU

·        Zimmerman - Yes

Watson stated the outcome of the poll, reporting that option B would be taken to the management committee, recognizing the concerns from Ball State.

6. A brief discussion of the upcoming ITC-Working Group retreat

Scott shared that an expanded agenda would be going out to everyone by the end of the week, and if anyone has comments, they need to be sent to her as soon as possible.

Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.