Meeting minutes from July 12, 2006
1–3 p.m., IHETS boardroom

Present:  O’Neal Smitherman Chairman, Ball State University; Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana; Robert Barley, Indiana State University; Wayne Bohn, University of Southern Indiana; Mark Bruhn, Indiana University; Dan Burns, Purdue North Central; Vernon Draper, Ball State University; Lisa Fears, Franklin College; Laura Larimer, Ivy Tech State College; Vince Lucas, Incolsa; Richard Miles, WFYI; Fred Nay, Ball State University; Carmin Schnarr, Vincennes University; Michael Sherer, Goshen College; Bill Simmons, Purdue University; Pat Smoker, Purdue University

IHETS staff:  Tim Fisher, Max Gordon, Rauf Khalid, Dave King, Kevin Siminski, Ed Stockey, Susan Sullivan, Barry Wray, Betty Hart

Smitherman called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. and commented on the excellent attendance and hoped that this would continue. Siminski introduced himself as director of operations of IHETS and will serve as the staff representative for this committee.

Introductions continued.

Smitherman began with an overview of today’s meeting agenda and stated that this group will assume the responsibilities of the former Integrated Technologies Committee (ITC).

Circuit Support Fund

Today we need a discussion and recommendation to take the IHETS Board of Directors for action. Subsidy is the circuit support that IHETS contributes to universities and colleges around the state of Indiana.

Ongoing support issues for new services

IHETS services being offered are video, voice, education networking, and research and development. This group will meet six times per year, three individual committee meetings and three joint meetings with other operating committees. The Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education (IPSE) is chaired by Brad Wheeler and staff support is Susan Scott, the Finance Committee is chaired by Jeff Pittman and staff support is Tim Fisher. Collectively we need to decide on a date to meet with the IPSE. Previously ITC meetings were held the second Tuesday of every other month.

Nay shared his views on inviting vendors to present and demo new products to the ITC and added that this was a positive outcome and all institutions gained benefit. He recommends that we continue to look and examine new solutions through vendor presentations.

Status of I-Light deployment

Siminski shared that the higher education network was built in 1993 due to a campus needing specialized connectivity that was not availability by the commercial sector. IHETS developed it offered it and it has grown to where it is today. I-Light will equalize the playing ground for everyone and it  could bring gig connections to the largest and smallest campuses.

Smoker stated that telecommunications today plays an important role in every county and rural area in the state. The original charter states that our goal is to find a cost effective and well managed service. Smitherman added that in I-Light meetings that discussions have surfaced and concerns have been shared on establishing policies that run the network. The expertise of this group and everyone around this table can develop and shape these decisions.

Bruhn shared that Indiana University belongs to the Committee for Institutional Corporation (CIC), a consortium of Big Ten universities and other universities across the country. These committees make decisions on whether to buy a solution or develop solutions jointly. The CIC does have active projects and working groups. They have an active voice on the security committee, library group, enterprise directors group, and operations group and suggest that this may be a guide that could assist IHETS.

Smitherman asked Bruhn if these concerns were issues that would be addressed within this group, and his response was yes. It was recommended that the TOAC group plan workshops and events to develop discussions on specific technical issues. This model would fit on the Common Solutions Group and the ICI Group. The leadership of the CIC is under the provost but under the auspices of the CIO group is a security working group, video group and all IT related issues are managed under the CIO group as well.  

Siminski shared several years ago the annual IHETS Tech Summit was an effort about IHETS pushing information to everyone around the table and to our member institutions. Last year a significant change took place in that it was made up from the folks around this table and provided a great opportunity for new ideas to surface.

Smitherman stated that the IHETS Board has given their endorsement to this committee to develop and become advocates for I-Light movement and higher education. Bruhn added that we want to expand the number of colleges represented. Smitherman asked for a specific recommendation from this group. Bruhn will draft a document and forward to Siminski or Smitherman to distribute to everyone.

Smitherman asked if anyone was uncomfortable with the e-mail voting process. No response was heard. We plan to officially meet six times a year and there is likely to be issues that may necessitate a called meeting. Larimer stated her concern that this process could become difficult and continued. Frequently you will have several folks who are vocal in e-mail and if we have a topic where we have a 60/40 majority, I feel that needs further discussion from this committee.

Smitherman asked if there were any objections to having called meetings in person or others in addition to our scheduled meetings.  No objections were heard. The consensus is it is appropriate for any group member to call a meeting. A tentative schedule for called meetings would need to be set in advance to enable members to clear their calendars.

Siminski stated that an internal process began about 14 months ago and many of you participated and provided input in the ITC, IPSE, and Faculty Services committees. Bill Kramer led the external review team and a document culminated which resulted in some significant changes. The greatest change was reviewing the board structure and evaluating the committees. The operations side is the support system for the e-learning side of the organization and IHETS Interactive is the replacement for the satellite service. Internally the need exists for a strong support system and this group has a strong supporting role for the entire member base. Siminski suggested addressing this issue and continuing further discussions at the joint committee meeting with the IPSE.

Bruhn shared his participation and the process involved on two funding models a central storage solution and an anti virus model. Through the CIC a contract for the anti virus model was negotiated with Symantec and excellent pricing was received. The cost of license was paid by each university member. The group consisted of security people, purchasing agents, legal folks and guided by Karen Partlow as staff support. An RFP was written by the security working group with support from internal counsel and negotiations managed by the purchasing agents. Using the central storage solution as an example, it is feasible that the campuses using this service would pay a user fee to IHETS and recouping the cost of implementing and supporting this service.

Smitherman stated that with the “new IHETS” (i.e., organizational restructuring) there may be requests for new services and attached with these new services will come a user fee. Those institutions that would choose to implement these new services would contribute proportionately to their need. During the internal and external review process a decision was reached to develop and define a set of core services. An additional set of services would also be available and bought on a per usage bases.

Larimer shared her concern on the volume we can address with current staff and questions whether we have the type of folks to accomplish a market analysis, financial analysis, and build a business model. Khalid stated that this committee would prioritize the list of projects and use this to balance our workload.

One of the goals of this committee is to focus on getting every campus connected to I-Light as quickly as possible. We are looking at fiber builds that are in excess of a million dollar. Everyone needs to take an advocating role to the Legislature and to Senator Ford a supporter of the I-Light initiative. We will all need services once everyone is connected to I-Light.

Siminski distributed copies of the subsidy summary and stated that this process has been accomplished earlier in the year through the ITC, but purposely delayed until the new organizational structure was in place. For those new to the committee the circuit support fund has existed since 97/98 and came from a reduction in our satellite channels. This was not a net addition to our state appropriated account and we didn’t get $1.5M dollars in 1997 to support circuits. In 1990 users were relying more on circuits for critical applications and this account was established. In the early 90’s the support was centered on Tls and 56ks, 50 percent support DS3s and 50 percent support Tl connections. The account balance last year was $1.2M due to a circuit price reduction offered via ITN and Indiana Office of Technology. We went to a projected spending of $1.2M to only spending $742,000.

IHETS was authorized to divest ourselves from the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) and The Indiana Telecommunications Network. New infrastructure was purchased, routers, switches, and IP video port licenses. We are in the process of implementing those devices and drawing a line in what will be the higher education network and the state network. IHETS will support the state network for the next 6-12 months. A goal of the internal and external review process was not to impact circuit pricing. For the upcoming year DS3 connections were supported at $2,000/mo, first T1 @ $125/mo, second or incremental T1s @ $175/mo and that resulted in a 50/50 breakdown.

Siminski continued and recommends making no changes during this transitional period when campuses are considering changing from DS3s to gigabit circuits on I-Light. If things remain the same this year we will fall within the $700,000 projected for the 06/07 fiscal year. The exceptions are if every campus would upgrade to a DS3 then obviously we would have a problem with only $700,000 and therefore a called meeting would be necessary. Siminski projected five to seven campuses would move to DS3s within the next year.

Larimer shared that she approves of this model but stated that there is no incentive for getting everyone connected to I-Light and asked if we could have an addendum stating that you would continue to receive your subsidy amount of what you had received before. Siminski replied that we could do that but asked for further discussion. Bohm responded that an addendum needed to be added stating that if you go to I-Light you would continue to receive your subsidy amount.

Siminski stated that the I-Light pricing model consists of three tiers of service. The bronze level offers a gig connection with 25 megabits of Internet commodity service at $4,000, silver level offers a gig connection with 50 mega bits of Internet commodity service at $5,000, and the gold level offers a gig connection at a 100 mega bits of Internet commodity service at $7,000. It is a disadvantage to carry the subsidy model into the I-Light model today if you are currently only utilizing low speed services such as a T1 or multiple T1s.

Bruhn asked if the folks at the State level (i.e., IOT and budget office) have knowledge of this money and that it is designated for subsidies. Siminski stated that we have tried to educate the folks at the legislative level on the distribution of the funds over the course of 3 or 4 years. The state appropriations document will be shared with everyone.

Siminski added that this committee will establish a set of internal metrics to be shared with the other operating committees and also a set of external metrics for the political folks.

Nay commented "What I am hearing is keep the subsidy the same. I don’t know if there is one person today that would be impacted negatively if we kept it the way it is today."

Bruhn added that we have to rely on connect fees in order to build up the capital reserve and renew the leases in 10 years. Further discussions are needed on recouping these dollars to assist colleges with last mile cost.  

Smitherman asked for a motion concerning subsidy, Pat Smoker made a motion that the subsidy remain the same and it was seconded by Fred Nay. Siminski added that language is needed on the policy that accounts for the I-Light network. As campuses are in a position to immediately take advantage of I-Light this year we need to have some language that recognizes what Laura has already mentioned is carry the subsidy with them. The other item is language that suggests how campuses are eligible for subsidy when they connect to I-Light. As long as you have a direct connection to the I-Light network or the higher education network you are eligible for circuit support from IHETS.

Directly connected means that if you have a gigabit circuit from your campus to the I-Light node. The model that does not work is if a regional provider decides to develop a network and in that network they go to six campuses and state for a fee I will connect you to my network and then we will jointly connect through a single connection back to the I-Light network. In this case the only one eligible for subsidy support is the head-in connection that connects the regional aggregator to the I-Light node. The connections behind the aggregator are not eligible. When campuses have moved off the network they have not carried that subsidy with them

Nay asked if several schools wanted to extend to I-Light would it be acceptable to negotiate a better price for them through this committee. The response was yes.

Siminski noted these addendums:

1. If you are a network member receiving subsidy from IHETS and move to I-Light, your subsidy carries forward with you. 

2. If you are connecting to I-Light to be eligible for subsidy support, you have to have a direct connection. Whether it is from dark fiber being built or some sort of point to point, Ethernet circuit which would be very similar to a DS3 or T1 connection. Bruhn clarified the connection must be from the institution to the I-Light node.

Smitherman asked Smoker if he would be willing to add these to his motion and Smoker moved that these two addendums be added to the existing agreement.

The meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m.