**UNAPPROVED DRAFT**

Conference Call

March 8, 2000

Board Room
714 N. Senate Ave.
Indpls. IN

Present: Ellen Watson, ISU Chair; Wayne Bohm, USI; Byron Bonds, Purdue University; Michael Gay, Purdue University; John Huie, Purdue University; Carmin Schnarr, Vincennes University for Carl Koenig, Fred Nay, Ball State University; Art Mahan, Taylor University; Brian Stone, Indianapolis Marion-County Public Library; Neal Vines, Purdue University; Barrie Zimmerman, Indiana University.

IHETS staff:Scott Beauregard, Tim Fisher, Max Gordon, Dave King, Nancy Millichap, Jennifer Ping, Tim Ping, Mark Rottler, Susan Scott, Ed Stockey, Ed Tully, Betty Hart.

Watson called the meeting to order and stated that this a continuation of the conference call held on March 3^rd regarding budget issues as it relates to the current price for T1/56k AISN circuits.  King began with an overview and of the background information distributed.

It was mentioned that we have had 41 additional T-1 circuits estimated growth for the next year. The goal is to estimate as accurately as possible over the long term. We must speak effectively and together.

Also mentioned was that there will most likely be approximately 10 DS-3 type circuits for member institutions connectiviity to for the year 2000-2003 timeframe.

Watson asked which direction the committee members felt we should go in terms of applying the limited funds across the institutions. Fred Nay said that he would like to see the subsidy divided by FTE's. Neil Vines commented that the key consideration is the direction that the network needs to go overall. The problem with current subsidy levels offered is that they may very well dry up; we need to take a look at the long term without the subsidy. We should go to the telco vendors and ask for long term pricing on the network or determine how we can make it self-supporting.

King responded to the FTE-based proposal that if Purdue or Ball State comes in to the mix it would help them, but this will hurt the smaller institutions.

It was reiterated that the desired result from the meeting was a proposal or agreement on which direction to proceed. Vines shared that Purdue bears the highest cost and it is difficult to meet the budget commitment FY 2001-2003 support proposal that King has laid out yesterday, but that the current direction seems fair nonetheless. Watson agrees for Indiana State University. Art Mahan also supported the increase to $11,000 per T1 circuit as being fair if temporarily unpleasant. Brian Stone suggested that instead he would like to see the subsidy move in the direction of distribution per mega byte.

Bohm asked if spreadsheets could be provided that would illustrate the per-institution costs with the decreased subsidies and the $44k price cap. The equation will be different at each institution, and it would help to see the numbers in black and white.

Watson stated that the March 14 meeting needs to result in a proposal to take to the Management Committee meeting on the 21st. King asked that spreadsheets be put together and e-mailed before the March 14 meeting.

King reiterated once again, that there are two choices, raise the costs to the institutions and cap the subsidies, or have institutions pay the $16500 for new circuits while IHETS maintains current subsidy levels for current circuits.

Anyone with questions or comments may contact Dave King or Ed Tully

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 am.