***APPROVED***

IHETS Management Committee

July 18, 2000

IHETS Conference Room

PRESENT
John Huie, Purdue University
Lou Jensen, Indiana State University
Dennis Kramer, Ball State University
Fred Nay, Ball State University
TK Olson, Independent Colleges of Indiana
Chris Peebles, Indiana University – via telephone
Robert Ruble, University of Southern Indiana

IHETS STAFF
Carol Brunty
Tim Fisher
Dave Kaufman
Dave King
Susan Scott
Ed Stockey
Ed Tully
Julie Wheeler

Chairman Huie called the meeting to order at 10:00 am

Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the May 16 meeting were reviewed and accepted as distributed.

Important Pending Issues
Additional Satellite Channel: Scott gave a brief background on topic of adding a fifth satellite channel for IHETS Television and noted the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 enrollment data.   The appropriation request includes funds to secure the channel.  At this time, the bandwidth adjacent to the current four channels is available, but there has been interest from others to lease the space.  If the space were not available we would need to find adjacent bandwidth for the five channels on another transponder or satellite.  The cost to redirect all of the uplinks and downlinks will be approximately $150K. 

The fifth channel could be leased on a month-to-month basis at a slightly higher cost than we pay for the other four channels or can re-lease the channel for a longer-term contract with three months’ notice at the current rate. 

The per-hour cost if we spread the cost of an additional channel among all users (i.e. current four channels plus new) would be about $48/hour, depending on how the usable time and allocation are calculated.

The key questions for the Committee are: should IHETS lock in the adjacent fifth channel now for use this  year?  If the requested appropriation for that purpose is not received, can the originating institutions sustain the investment in the fifth channel?  Do originators need the additional channel before next July?

The Committee discussed the following options. 

1. Decide in March, based on the appropriation request.
2. Lease the fifth channel now on a three-year contract for use beginning in January 2001 with institutional cost-sharing to cover the fifth channel lease for six months, and if IHETS does not receive sufficient funds, continuing through the life of the contract.
3. Initiate the month-to-month lease for the fifth channel immediately with institutional cost-sharing and convert to a three-year contract whenever we know that we have continuation funding or remain on a month-to-month basis until the channel is no longer needed. 

Following a lengthy discussion about the positive and negative aspects of each option, the group recommended that IHETS not pursue the fifth channel at this time.  They asked that the Working Group establish policies or guidelines to assist the institutions in preparing scheduling requests in an effort to use the current four channels more efficiently and effectively.  The Committee requested the policy be presented at the September Management Committee meeting for endorsement. 

Committee Analysis
Scott reported on committee and staff response to concerns raised in a letter from President Worthen (see addendum) regarding the current committee structure.  The Working Group and Integrated Technologies Committee have been looking at the needs and roles for the current committees and will present recommendations on the committee structure to the Management Committee at the September meeting.  Huie asked the group to consider whether the Management Committee should go back to monthly meetings rather than bi-monthly.  Kramer added that the schedule should coincide with the other committee schedules. 

Appropriation Request
King reviewed the appropriation request narrative.  Some committee members expressed concern that it is too long.   Huie suggested that staff develop an executive summary for the narrative.  Ruble added that specific details about how funds will be used would be helpful.  Staff will modify the document and circulate a revised copy to the Committee for comment.  King indicated the document would be circulated for 48 hours for review.

IN-SPAN Financial Status
King reported on problems with the overall financial accounting for the backbone largely due to the fact that state accounting don’t permit the needed tracking.  Staff has contracted with Broadwing, Inc., to conduct an analysis and implement a cost accounting software package.  Fisher added that Broadwing has recommended a cost accounting system that would reflect costs for the month incurred so it will be easier to identify the flow.  Staff expect to have the new system operational by October 1. 

Fall 2000 Update
Tully reviewed a list of ATM sites on the Fall 2000 project. He noted that several tests are scheduled and that all sites are to be completed for the beginning of the semester on August 14.   Tully added that as of today, there are 644 paying sites, compared to less than 200 last year at this time.

IN-SPAN Pricing Proposal
56K Access Line Service/Pricing:  Tully reported that we were losing money with the current 56K access line service pricing.  There are 150 existing leased lines at a cost of $899 each and are priced at $625.  Alternatives to the 56K services are to continue leasing lines at a loss; use frame relay or DSL when available; or increase the service option to 128Kbps and increase price to $950 per month.  Tully reviewed the information presented to Intelenet’s Network Partnership.

The Intelenet Commission approved the following:  all new requests use new pricing effective July 1, 2000 (must select frame relay at 32k CIR or 128k).  Existing 56k services at $625 will be grandfathered with the new pricing going into effect on July 1, 2001.

DS3 Pricing:  Tully reported a price structure for DS3 has never been set.  The Intelenet Network Partnership reviewed a recommendation to set DS3 pricing as follows:  the monthly cost for 15 Mb would be $14,000; 21Mb at $18,000; and 45Mb at $28,800.  The recommendation was approved by the Network Partners.

Video Service Pricing:  Tully reported on options for video service pricing.  There are two types of video, IP Managed Video Service and ATM Video Services.  IP is currently available to all T1 users.  IP carries a lower cost CPE (compared to ATM video) and occasionally requires infrastructure changes.  However, there are no guarantees on the quality of service. 

ATM Video Service has a guaranteed quality of service and bandwidth on demand.  ATM also transports any existing protocol and will scale from 1.5 Mbps to GBps range without equipment or LAN changes.  It also allows point-to-point video conferencing, broadcast video, and cached video.  The disadvantages to ATM video are higher recurring cost ($400-$550/month), requires a video switch (hardware & installation cost)  and often requires campus LAN changes. 

Video pricing is being proposed as follows:

IP data only - $2300 (non-recurring) and $1375/monthly

IP managed video - $3,000 (new) and $700 (upgrade) non-recurring costs and $1575/monthly

ATM video - $4300 (new) and $2,000 (upgrade) and $1925/monthly

(Note: this proposal has since been withdrawn and a new price structure is under discussion- DAK 7.27.00)

King added that all this indicates increased circuit costs for IHETS. He will push to grandfather current and pending sites until July 2001.  He asked for recommendations from the Committee.  There was considerable institutional concern about how they can find funds to deal with the increase now that budgets have already been set, and stressed importance of keeping the pricing down.  Staff will keep IHETS members fully informed about decisions.

Committee Reports
Integrated Technologies Committee:   King introduced Fred Nay as the new chair of the ITC.  Nay reported that the group has had discussions about the committee charter with a focus on technology issues.  They will be working on a draft document at the next meeting. 

IPSE Working Group:   Jensen reported on the development and approval of the Guiding Principles document.  A subgroup was appointed in early 2000 and charged “to craft a set of guidelines which define good practice in distance learning and give faculty a clear benchmark for designing, developing, delivering, and assessing distance learning courses and/or programs.”  Jensen thanked the group for their work in developing the document.  King suggested taking the Guiding Principles document to the Board for endorsement.

A subcommittee of the Working Group is working on the committee charge and outlining responsibilities, structure and reporting.

Jensen thanked Dave Kaufman, Tim Paige, and Scott Beauregard for conducting a training session for Learning Center Coordinators on two-way video equipment. 

The next Management Committee meeting is scheduled for September 19.  The meeting adjourned at 12:40pm.