APPROVED

March 22, 1999

IHETS Board Room
714 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN

Present:Wayne Bohm, University Southern Indiana Ellen Watson, Chair Indiana State UniversityFred Nay, Ball State University

IHETS staff:Tim Fisher, Betty Hart, Dave King, Jennifer Ping, Susan Scott, Ed Stockey, Ed Tully

Ed Tully opened the meeting by outlining proposed bandwidth pricing changes and noting that new connections to the backbone are rapidly increasing due to greater bandwidth requirements at schools (currently we have a total of 63 Higher Ed connections to the backbone). Subsidizing them at the present $7,000 per T1 per year rate is becoming more and more difficult. To handle this load, we are proposing a new rate of $9,000 per year beginning July 1, 1999.  This is in turn factored into our request to the legislature for connection support, which totals $1.34M. Tully has e-mailed the Excel spreadsheet that explains the proposed plan.

This coming year, IHETS proposes and commits to ~165 total Higher Education sites.  Relating to this total, Tully reviewed a spreadsheet that he e-mailed earlier that shows the projection plan for the elimination of two additional satellite channels.  This reduction would result in an additional 28 general Higher Ed T1 lines, as well as 23 CES T1s. The money recovered from the two-channel reduction is already spent. 

Dave King and Ellen Watson will submit this proposal to the Management Committee tomorrow.

Watson shared her concern that the numbers in the pricing structure are correct before she and King submit this recommendation to the Management Committee tomorrow.

King stated the $16,500 price is set for Higher Education people, which is standard pricing for AISB connections. Tully said that a reduction or increase in service is possible, depending on the results of our choices today. He also said that he would like to cap the number of T1s added at 28 for this year. 

King is in favor of a review of these numbers at regular intervals, possibly on a quarterly or even a monthly basis.  He and Watson proposed that after 7/1/99 (the date $9K per T pricing takes affect) a formal review should place six months from that date. He proposed that this be accompanied by an update and review by the Integrated Technologies Committee on a quarterly basis. King reiterated that the 1, 2, or 3 T1s priced at $9,000 per year are fully multi-service capable, with SUVON/Voice, Internet connectivity, video-caching, video-casting, and video conferencing services available.

Watson asked for assurance(s) on end to end service or a possible single most significant service guarantee. Wayne Bohm then raised a question on the $9,000 proposed pricing for T1 lines. He stated he felt that he could obtain a T1 line for less elsewhere. Tully asked Jennifer Ping to investigate the pricing of a T1 from local ISPs.

Watson said that she was not hearing any alternatives on the price increase. She stated that she and King would take this pricing issue to the Management Committee meeting at the rate of $9,000, with a review not less than quarterly from the Integrated Technologies Committee. Waston asked for objections to this proposal.  Fred Nay shared his support for this proposal; no objections noted. It was mentioned that there was a lack of enthusiasm on this issue. It was said that we would adjust prices downward in the future if it becomes a possibility.

Watson asked Tully if he had made contact with Jacob Levanon to invite him to make a presentation to the ITC on the Abilene Project and Internet2 project at our April 13^th meeting. Tully reported that Jacob was not available and was on vacation. Watson requested that the business meeting be scheduled in the morning session and that the presentation take place in the afternoon. Tully will confirm the arrangements and e-mail the details everyone.

Tully asked Susan to summarize the Scheduling Committee meeting on March 18. Susan reported that the committee members are not in favor of reducing channel capacity by two channels. A suggestion was made that we wait one year before dropping any channels.

Scott added that no new courses have been added to the schedule, and no course increase to support two channels has been noted. Scott said that she is concerned that Higher Education will be the scapegoat for the backbone. A request addressing specific needs and issues along with supporting documentation should be forwarded to Susan Scott or Dr. Charles Greenwood to take to the IPSE meeting on Friday.

Ellen Watson said that this channel reduction delay was not an option. King followed up by asking those calling in remotely to check with their institutions, get their demands in order, and then to actively participate.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.