State of Arizona telecommunications planning study for department of administration telecommunications section

              STATE OF ARIZONA
Telecommunications Planning Study
for
Department of Administration
Telecommunications Section
Prepared by:
Richard Brown
William Chen
Northern Telecom
July 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summfy
2. Study Objectiies and Process
3. The Network Environment
4. Situational Assessment: The Utility Network
5. Network Remmrnendations
APPENDIX 1 : INTERVIEW WORK SHEET
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 8 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX 3: DISTANCE LEARNING MEMODS COMPARISON SHEET
APPENDIX 4: FEATURE GROUP SERVICE AlTRiBUTES 8 COSTS
APPENDIX 5: TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an analysis of the network fundional requirements of the communications
services supported by the state's agency and -&cation communities; and offers
mmmendations to support those services on a l u t i l i communications network m g e d and
operated by a dn~bst ate entity.
The network requirements were determined from conversations, interviews and materials
provided to NTI by administrative agency communications managers, and those in the education
community sensitive to, or responsible for, leveraging technology to advance the educational
mandate.
There are economic and functional advantages to creating a state-wide 'utility' network; the
primary focus of the utility network should be that it provide 'commodity' services to the
agencyladministrative end-user. Within this charter & will also be positioned to support the
education requirement for both commodity voice and data services network-wide, and for
wideband services between Phoenix and Tucson. The following recommendations are offered:
1) Implement a utility network who's primary f m s is to serve the administrative
agencies' communication requirements. Support 'commodityw
communications services, voice and data, that are deployed on a cost-justified
basis.
2) Implement the utility network as a 'hybrid" network - a mix of both private, CPE-based,
and public network resources - and base the architecture and
topology on the existing ITN network.
3) Extend the reach of the utility network to locations currently 'off-net" by
leveraging public-network voice and data inter-working options.
4) Evolve the utility network to support wideband services between Phoenix and
Tucson.
Such a utility network would best address the expressed operational concerns of those
responsible for supporting the agencies' needs; which were to address the:
1) increasing demand for &&ing services - growth of 7raditional" network users
for existing applications and senrices
2) emergence of 'inter-departmentar applications and a requirements to interad
with the other state and federal government networks and databases
3) emergence of a new m e ' of application whose network support
requirements are not addressed by the current network architecture and
installed technologies. (high banchv&h appIcations - 6.g. imaging, file
transfer, LAN-LAN, and support for bff-network" access to mon-network"
SeNices)
4) implementation and management of the inter-agency applikation-set from an
,ad hoe organizational infra-structure (8.9. planning, standards, access,
petformanee support, and such itrplementation and management issues
its prvject funding and manpower)
An ?lgency-foarsed utility network would also mrve the education community by providing more
oost-effective commodity services to wpport existing voice and &-speed data 'education"
rervlces. Then are a number of e6Eabbn mWs, wica and data, that could be carried on an
dfninistrative aflncy UtiEty nehvo* and doing so would both inprove services to the education
oommuntty and enhance the cost-effectiveness of a agency-based utility network. There are
economic and functional advantages to supporting these education-based services from the
utility network.
A 'utility" function that addresses the needs of the education and administrative communities
equally, fmm technologies available today, will not provide any economic or functional advantage
over supporting two independent network thrusts. There is no unifying technobgical platform,
arnentEy available, to msf-effectively support the different mandates of these communities.
The mandate of an agency's communications orpanization is to support the administrative
function by providing basic services at the bwest cost. The function of the communications
services that support the educational mandate is to foster "equity" teaching services throughout
the state, and to enhance the reach and effectiveness of the education process by leveraging
communications technologies.
The objedive of the agency networks are to provide 'commodity' voice and data administrative
services, and justify the deployment of those services on a 'least cost of service" basis. The
education networks serve a social and philosophical goal; and act to draw new businessJscientific
Merests into the state while increasing the capabilities and reach of the education providers.
The agency-networks carry rradiiionar administrative applications that are well supported by
nanowband (DSM1) services. The education-networks carry, what well call for lack of a better
term, "education" applications - video and computer-file transfer applications - that rely on
significantly greater 'bandwidthw, typically Wideband" (Tl/T3). And although the distribution
networks parallel each other - that is they reach out to the same cities - the functional requirements
imposed are different, as are the implementation and technological alternatives to cost-effectively
support those requirements.
These networks serve different goals, are enabled by different technologies, support different
application-set functional requirements, offer different implementation choices to management,
operate to diierent service measures, and are optimized to different objedives; in essence they
serve two masters. And, although there are no technological barrier to providing all services from
a single network pointof-view doing so will not offer any operational advantage.
However, within the agency network environment there are 64opIcations with similar operational
requirements that, taken together, define common functional requirements. These are the
predominant applicatbns on every one of the agency networks and they account for virtually all of
the data network traffic. These are the Wdiffional" administrative applications; and the functional
requirements of these applications could be satisfied within a single unifying archiiecture, on a
Mility' network, offering 'commodii communications services.
Comrnodii services, are supported by commonly available technologies and external service
providers; and are distributed over facilities providing low-speed (<SbKbps/DSO) to narrowband
(1 .SMbpsTT1) capacity. Commodity services fully support all of the existing and the new inter-agency
applications, though will not adequately support most of the 'imaging' applications
envisioned for the Mure; these would require wideband services.
However, the Unity" network will evolve to support wideband services, at least between Phoenix
8nd Tucson. The growing traffic volume of bw-speed data and voice on the -agency-networks-between
Phoenix and Tucson, Y trends continue, will eventually cost-jutii wideband (T3)
capacity. The agencyfadministrative community, does not currently require wideband from a
d&~~ct&npaoli ntof-view, krt will be able to aosf-bsti&a wideband link on the "commodity"
8ervkxs utility network. Once imQlemented this wideband link will not only functionally support
the needs of the emerging "imaging' applications, but also encourage the deployrrsent of other
wideband services such as: conpressed video; databasefiile transfer; graphics.
Wah these points In mind, the recommendations in the body of this report focus on enabling
three major utiljty network functionalities:
1) -off-ner access for voice and bw-speed (g56Kbps) data services to both the
agency and education community.
2) extending the reach of the network-based capabilities for voice, bw-speed
and narrowband (56KbpsJl .5Mbps) data sewices in the metropolitan
areas of Phoenix and Tucson via the "hybrid" network concept.
3) facilitating publidprivate inter-working via an understanding of industry
directions and standards for namwbanclhideband technologies to
support Tl K3 (l.SMbpsl4SMbps) network requirements.
A conceptual level view of technologies that suppod the utility network requirements are
presented as a separate appendix. An implementation plan should be developed after the state's
review of the conclusions and recommendations made in this document; and after their decisions
concerning directions, timetable and operational priorities. That plan would incorporate a
quantitative economic analysis of the implementation choices; and we recommend this as the
appropriate next step.
This report addresses the first phase of a utility network concept that will evolve as more powerful
and cost effective communication technologies are made available. The most significant
technology in this regard is fiber. F i r , and SONET-based services, would support both
'education' and *ageW applications from a single technological platform and enable a true utility
capability. As a Mure consideration, as the cost of fiber-based services drop, the utility network
could evolve to support broadband service; at least within and between Phoenix and Tucson.
2. STUDY OBJECTIVE AND PROCESS
This study was sponsored by the state of Atfzona Department of Administration, Data
Management Mvision, and performed by Northern TeWm. I! relied on the participation of the
~mmmk;atbnsm anagement of the state agencies and educational community for Its source of
information. TBese managers graciously gave their time to d i i s s their current communications
environment and their plans to support the needs of their end users.
The interviews lasted approximately one hour each and generally involved the manager and at
. least one member of the technical staff. The interview work sheet d i n e s issues that were
discussed and is attached as Appendlx 1 to indicate the tone and nature of the conversations.
Appendlx 2 is a list of those who participated and the documentation they provided us as
background information for understanding the issues being addressed by their departments.
The tasks of the study were to:
1) Understand the goals and senrice phibsophy of the Agency and Educational
community.
2) Identify the communications needs, of each agency and educational entity,
that serve those goals.
3) Understand the current and evolving application-set support requirements
and the operational and functional requirements that this application-set
impose on a network.
4) Propose an appropriate network architecture and enabling technology that
supports the application requirements, and is sensitive to a number of
operational factors: EG. cost; quality; standards; manpower constraints;
management phibsophy and organizational infra-stnrcture.
5) Provide an implementation scenario and schedule for deploying the
appropriate architecture and technology.
Our goal was to understand the application requirements and operational environment, and from
this define the functional requirements of a network that wouM senre the total end-user
community.
3. THE NETWORK ENVIRONMENT
This section discusses three network entities that bewe the administratbe and bducatii~t
mmunilies: the 'agency 8ewlces network'; the *education seinrices netwoW; the ITN
backbone network.
The 'agency-networks" supports the comrnunicatbn requirements of the administrative
departments: Administration, Corredions, Education, Economic Security, Land, Health Services,
Public Safety, Revenue, Transportation, Water Resources, and Wi of Attorney General.
The 'education-networks' supports the communication requirements of the education
community: K12 schools, school districts, community colleges and the university system
The ITN network, Inter-agencyT elecommunicatbns Network, sup~ortsth e voice and data inter-agency
requirements by providing the communications highway that connects government
offices across the state to the processing and administration center at the capitol mall in Phoenix.
The sections below describe the characteristics and distribution requirements of those networks.
The figures referred to in this section are provided immediately following the section where they
are first referenced.
3.1 T HE AGENCY-NETWORKS:
s
The agency networks cany what can be called IYradiionar" or 'administrative' applications. These
applications generate virtually all of the current traffic on the agency networks. 'Administrative"
applications are the transadion-based database access and retrieval services that are
characterized by - 'a few characters sent down the line from the terminal and a screen full sent
back from the host'.
These applications are centralized, large database access, query/response applications.
Characteristiilly, a user will initiate a transaction by sending a few characters (typically 10 to 100
characters) to the centralized host processing site, and the application will return a screen, or
multiple screens, of information back (typically 100 to 2000 characters).
Application performance requirements are addressed by limiting the utilization on the link from the
end user to the host processor. Line transmission rates are typically 9.6 Kbps, and when line
utilization is kep low, typically bekw 25%, these networks will satisfy the performance criteria of
the cunent applkations set - average network transit time bekw 3 seconds.
These networks are characterized by applications that make simlbr demands on a pod of common
resources. Each ~licationo,r bpansactionw ithin an application, requires approximately the same
amount, and kind, of network resource; they all make similar demands on the resource pool.
Essentially, the network is wpporting one kind of application; and can be optimized to support
that performance requirement. And, conversely, to provide the acceptable overall network
p e r f o m each transaction wst require the same level and kind of network resources and
sewice levels.
The wrrent application mbc conforms do this constraint, and therefore the current network
uchltedure and technology, adequately supports the combined end user community.
The agendes nyhrm network requlremenl, as relayed to us by the agency managers, are very
8imilar to one another. They are, to support, within the existing infra-stnrdure and funding
philosophy, the:
1) haeasing demand for applications services - growth of Wrtionar
network users for the existing applications and services
2) emergence of 'interdepartmentar applications and a requirements to interact
with the other state and federal government networks and databases
3) emergence of a new w e ' of application whose network support
requirements are not addressed by the current network architecture and
installed technologies. (higlr bandwidth applications - 8.0. imaging, tile
transfer, LAN-LAN communications)
4) implementation and management of the inter-agency application-set from an
'ad hoc' organizational infra-structure (e.g. planning, standards, access,
performance suppod, implementation and management issues)
The agency-networks application-set and operational phibsophy, taken together, constitute a
well-defined set of network functional requirements. These applications can be supported within
a single unifying network architecture and management philosophy and provide cost effective
services to the agencies' endusers.
The Dlstr&utlon Network
The agencies distribution networks are all very similar, and often parallel one another. They all
provide support services from the single processing cornplex in Phoenix to the administrative
offices in the field. Consequently these networks manifest similar topology and architecture, and
taken together represent variations on the basic theme of *star network. The range of those
variations can be seen from the representations in figures 3.1,3.2 and 3.3.
Flgure 3.1 depicts the network of the department of Water Resources, which is a pure %tar
network homed into the Phoenix processing center.
Flguro 3.2 shows the network of the Office of the Attorney General, which is basically a 'star
network with concentration centers at regional county seats where legal support service are
grovided. This network supports consolidation of network traffic, to reduce transport costs, and
otfers support for potential applications that require distributed processiwegal services from the
ancentration nodes.
Figure 3.3 represents another variatiin of a basic 'star network where the regional
concentration hubs may also enabled some limited (or not so limited) nehvork service capability:
EG. alternate routing; contingencyldisaster recovery services ('stand-bf back-up services from
networWprocessing nodes is Flagstaff, Phoenlx, Tucson). This is the department of Public
Safety's network;, and reflects a well designed microwave-network.
11 the agency-netwow were overlaid onto a oomposite distributbn network il would bok like the
OM) depicted in Flgun 3.4. This represents the topology of the single network that would
mrve each agency's distrikRkn requirements. That is, this network would reach to those
bcations necessary to support the total end-user community.
On this overlay network the total traffi wlurne7ied from the node sites to the Phoenix center
would be proportional to the number of end-users at the site. We mention what may seem a
somewhat obvious point only because it is not the case on the educatbn network where the
traffic volume pattern 16 based on a m r a p h i c support requirement. For example, the bandwidth
raquired to support an educational video application k Mependent of the number of end-users
viewing It; whereas the bandwidth to support an administrative database access application is
diredly related to the number of users.
Flgure 3.5 represents this overby network's bandwidth requirements, and Indicates the
particular Significance of the Tucson network We. The larger than 'average' bandwiih -
requirement between Tucson and Phoenix is not surprising since every agency had staff and a
field office in Tucson; and every agency network had a Tucson node. And, as we observed
before, the traffic on the administrative networks mirror the end-user population at the node
bcations therefore, we have a particularly large comrmnication requirement between these two
major cities. The bandwidth requirement between Phoenix and Tucson wnently constitute the
dominant share of inter-site network traffic, and can be expected to experience the fastest growth
because this is the bulk of the user community. And when new services are deployed, on a cost-per
user basis, they are more likely to be deployed to these two "populationdense" bcations. As
an example: wideband services to support imaging applications will be "cost-justified" and
implemented between Phoenix-Tucson, long before they are likely between Phoenix-Show Low.
Cost-justification is a valid sewice deployment criteria for a commodity services network, though it
fosters unequal capabilities. That is, il encourages "cost effective" bvt unequal services to
selecleduser-populations. But these are the largest sites and precisek were the smallest
productivity improvement per-individual will have the largestoverall impact; these are the locations
that provide the greatest "return on investment" for the capital expended.
I Dept. of Water Resources
B
a FLAGSTAFF
I
1
u
D
I
I
i
I
I
II
I
1
I
I
I
I
Figure 3.1
Attorney General
regional-based support services
FLAQSTAFF
b No..,..
Figure 3.2
I Dept. of Public Safety
C DPS Microwave Net work
FLAGSTAFF
Low
a1 ford
Figure 3.3
Generalized "Agency' Net work Overlay
Composite Topology
Figure 3.4
Generalized "AgencywN etwork Overlay
Composite Traf fic/Bandwidth Flow
FLAGSTAFF
Ulngmrn
Croroott
8how Low
PHOENIX
Figure 3.5
3 THE EDUCATION-NETWORKS:
The two dominanf network requirements are to suppod leachingwa nd mscientifiiawp plication
services. The %achingm applications rely on fuU motion, one-way video with two-way audio,
distributed by satellite broadcast to a number of kcations throughout the state. Satellite delivery
ot full motion one-way video is currently the method of choice, but compressecl video over
microwave or land line are being considered as potential alternatives for the future. Two-way full
motion video would of course be a more effective teaching technology krt can not be cost-justified
state-wide.
The operational mandate of the leaching' applications is to provide weducationael quitym.
'Equity' is a concept where the quality of the teaching and quantity of courses available, across
the state, wilt be the same; so that even the most sparsely populated communities will have
access to the same educational experience. The Squitymc oncept depends on the ability to
leverage communications technology to deliver the expert skills of a limited, centralized, pool of
teachers. Under this social mandate satellite distribution Is a very cost effect way to provide these
wideband services to the end-user comrmnities; and will remain a dominant distribution
technology. [As a means of comparing alYematjve methodologies for deliveting *distance
&am'ngR Appendlx 3 offers a short summary of the capabilities of several technologies].
The "scientific' applications are large data transfer services, that require widebandbroadband
capabilities, and are enabled by LAN technologies and architectures. These applications can be
supported within a campus-environment over appropriate transmission media (cable, or fiber), but
there is a growing need (desire) to extend these capabilities between the universities; and within
a single university to extend these services beyond the traditional campus environment.
Additionalty, there are evolving educational (training and continuing technical education) and
collegial (joint research and funding) relationship developing between the 'high tech'
scientifiiindustrial community and the university. Many of the applications that support this
relationship will depend on wideband services. A communication network that supports this inter-working
between the business and university communities is viewed as being as essential as
and -to attract and keep high-tech businesses in Arizona.
Support for these services, reaching' and 'scientificw, are critical to the education function. If
technology can enable an otherwise unattended educational objective il is the responsibility of
the educator to implement that service via that technology. This is a mandate where cost, though
important, is secondary to delivering an essential service. The network is not primarily there to
provide bw-cost commodity services, but rather to enable a more 'profound" social agenda.
Figun 3.6 represents the topology of the AETC land and microwave network that enables the
"learning at a distancems ervices throughout the state. This is the network that most directly
supports 'equw educational services by delivering a variety of video-based courses to the
sparsely populated communities. This network is an example of how the education wmmunity is
leveraging technology to sopport it's educational responsibility and also sewe the social policy ot
the state: I€. enabling the policy mandate to provide every child instruction in a second language.
Flgure 3.7, represents the traffic pattern of the .eqult)r network. The supporting bandwidth
requirement on the network are fked by the application distribution technology, and is not
proportional to the number of people actually using the service. That Is, the oommmk;ation
requirement is ppt based on the popllation d the end-user community but rather only on the
existence of an end-user; and the supporting network topology is based on po~raphyno t
population.
Flguro 3.8 represents the university community's msdentificmap plication network requirement.
This k the type of network that would serve: NSFnet applications; LAN-to-LAN beyond the
campus; Inter-working between the university and business communities; inter-university
services, which would to albw the untversity system to work as If on one campus. This is a
widebandfbroadband service network which would be necessary to support the functional
requirements of the university community. [It is depicted here &&a&; the link to
Fkgstaff wouM be t h q h Phoenix].
Clearly the network requirements of the educational community must be seen as separate from
those that a 'utility' network should aim to serve. There is no economic or functional common
ground for trying to rationalize this network with the utility network requirements. Except, of
course, if a utility wideband network existed where the educational mandate could be served,
even If only between Phoenix and Tucson, the education community would be use it.
Education "Equity" Net work
Window
FLAQSTAFF
n n V
W l n e i a
Clif ton
Land, Microwave, Satellite
Figure 3.6
Education "E9uityRN et work ~ - - - -
Composite ~ r afifc /~andwidthR equirement*
Wlndow
Clltton
Figure 3.7
Arizona Universities
National Research Education Network
FLAGSTAFF
E> Northern Arltonr Unlvorrlty
TUCSON
Unlrer.lty of Arizona
Community C o l l r g ~ o
a
Broadband Network
Figure 3.8
3.3 THE ITN BACKBONE NETWORK:
The atate-wide ITN backbone provides 'oommodii voice and data transpotl sewices to the
mncies in support of their eppliions requirements. It Is managed by the dngle organization
that k mandated to support 'inter-agenc)r requirements, and therefore h a position to provide
the management point of view required d the utility network service provider. The existing ITN
backbone k deployed as cost-justified senrice and the -rap& span of the existing network
facilities parallel the overlay cornpodte utility network.
mure 3.9 depicts the 7node ITN TI backbone as il was proposed in January 1987 by FLUOR
Technobgy, Inc. in a consulting report titled 'Interagency Telecommunication Networkn. The
topology reflects the traffic estimates that were populatiorrbased, and view the support
requirement as fbwing from the agency otfiis in the larger cities into the Phoenix capitol mall.
Figure 3.10 show the current status of the ITN network, and reflects how real-world needs have
directed the priorities of the network hrplementation. The "de factowc riteria for allocating
resources to service the agencies' communication requirement has resulted in the deployment of
multiple TI links between Phoenix and Tucson. This supports the bulk of the communications
requirement for voice and data services to the ITN network user community.
Flgure 3.11 represents a very important phenomenon which is the emergence of a data
requirement from "off-network" locations to 'on-network' service centers in the Phoenix and
Tucson. There are currently TI links from several offices within Phoenix and Tucson to the
network nodes there. These TI links support high-speed data services (narrowband DSOK 1
services) from the agency processing center at the capitol-mall; and suggests an emerging
functional requirement to support Metropolitan-Area Network (MAN) capabilities. MAN services
would support the growing population of agency-network users who an not physically at a
network node site but who need "node lie" services. Support for requirements for such new
services as LAN-to-LAN within the city or across the ITN backbone, LAN-Host, high-speed data
access to the ITN backbone, can all be expected; and will require that the network extend it's
reach to "off-network' locations within the city and support not only bw-speed but narrowband
services as well.
Flgure 3.12 represents the current situation in Phoenix and Tucson - multiple intra-city TI
spans hubing into the ITN badbne - and suggests the evoMngnMetro-Hub" MANfWAN network
connectivity requirement. The dominant characteristic of the current requirement Is a need to
support 'off-network' access to 'on-network' services for dial-up, bw-speed and high-speed
services from dedicated leased or switched data transport facilities. But the most significant
aspect of the situation is the emergence of a "campus-liken communication requirement in these
two cities. One of the anticipated effects of supporting additional low-speed and narrowband
services from off the network b as potential ifnpact on access to the network. That is, the access
bandwidth requirement to the public network may also eventual cost-justify T3.
Figun 3.13 represent the likely direction the network will take in the next few years; support of
Weband services over a T3 link between Phoenix and Tucson.
There are currently four TI between Phoenix and Tucson to support voice and data traffic
requirements. Traffic on the network from data applications is anticipated to be growing at 15%-
per year, and no one is prediding a decline in that rate for the foreseeable future. If these
trends oonbiwe, data traffic volume can be projected to double in four to five years. Today a 'non-discounted'
Phoenix to Tucson Ti cost about $3,000 per month, a T3 about $23,500 per month.
At todays rates the Weak even" point for a T3 link (45Mbps) k at about djOht TI links (1 bMbps);
and the cost of 'bandwidth' on the public network is declining.
Additbnalty, upport of metropolitan-area mtvkes, like those suggested in figura 3.12, are
kely to create a demand for ~ i v a k nste ~vicesb ehen Phoenbc and Tucson. That is, there will
mive a ~nctionafrequirement for this capability between those cltiis. Furthermore, even II no
new p g e m s e d traffic iri drawn to the backbone because of this enhance capability U is likely
that the univers&ies would find an interest in a deband senrice between the canpuses; in fact,
they mld use ttaa! capability ttoday, and likely would, and further cost-justii the intercity
wideband capabiii. But the agencies willuse this wideband link, because # will support the
imaging, and file transfer applicatbns that are now being planned.
STATE OF ARIZONA
ITN T-1 Backbone Network.
(as proposed 1/87)
Flr~atatt
Phoenix
Capitol Mall 0
/ YF'Orence Yuma Tucson \ Douglas
Figure 3.9
STATE OF ARIZONA
ITN T-1 Backbone Network
(as implementd 5/91)
Flags tat f
Florence
oTucson
\ Douglas
Figure 3.10
STATE OF ARIZONA
ITN T-1 Backbone Network
(as implementd 5/91)
Flagstaff
Metro-Hub
Douglas
Figure 3.11
Off-Mall
Office Complex
A If N Accerr Node
D Agency Procarring Center
@$ ~ r l m n aS LIOO TuTcsOo n 0 Publlc Network Facilltler
Figure 3.12
ITN Wideband Services Implementation
Flagataf f
Metro-Hub
w. MAN Service8 1
Services
Tucson
Metro-Hub
Figure 3.13
Douglas
4. SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT: THE UTILITY NETWORK CONCEPT
The mandate of the Agency-networks hi to pro?i 'commodw services at the best cost. The
mandate of the Education-network is to foster equity educational sewices throughout the state,
and to enhance the education process by leveraging technologies.
The agency-networks cany ?radtiinaP administrative applications that are well supported by
nanowband (DSOK1) services. The educationnetworks carry, tor lack of a better term, what we'll
call 'education' applications - video and comer-file transfer applications - that rely on
eignifiintly greater "bandwidth', typically Wideban@ (TlK3). And atthough the distribution
networks parallel each other - that is they reach out to the same dties - the functional requirements
imposed are different, as are the implementation and technological alternatives to cost-effectively
supporting those requirements.
These networks serve different goals, are enabled by dierent technologies, support different
application-set functional requirements, offer different implementation choices to management,
operate to dierent service measures, and are optimized to different objectives; in essence they
wrve two masters.
Although there are no technological barrier to providing all services from a single network point-of-view
a 'utility networkmth at addresses both communities equally will not provide any economic,o r
tunctional, advantage over supporting two network thrusts.
However, there are applications with similar operational requirements that, taken together, define
common functional requirements. These are the predominant applications on every one of the
agency networks; the applications that account for virtually all of the data network traffic. These
applications are the rraditionar administrative appliitions, and are characterized by
querylresponse access to centralized databases; and these are the functional requirements that
are best addressed by a state-wide utility communications network.
The 'utility network' concept would best serve the administrative agencies' situation and network
functional requirements that, taken together, can most economically be served from a common
architecture and operating philosophy, Furthermore, the communications budgeting philosophy - cost-/ustitied 'commodity' sewices - is supported by the utility network concept. The utility
network should provide these cost-justified commodity sewices and focus primarily on the
administrative agency end-user community.
Focusing on the 'agenw requirements will not preclude utility network support for 'education"
dienls. There are existing namwband voice and data *educationms ewices that would be more
Cost effectively provided to the educational community over a utility network. That is, there are a
number of education semkes, voice and data, that couM be carried on an admjniistrative agency
ufiity network; and doing so would both Improve sewices to the education community and further
enhance the cost-eff ediveness of an agency-focused utility network.
Traffic vobrne demands for *commodity' comrmnication senrnrketsh at support the 'administrative"
agency-network applications between Phoenix and Tucson are growing exponentialty. Data
traffic growth estimates of 15% to 20O/0 per year are still reported on the agency networks; and the
Her-agency traffic increases are keeping pace, driven by new appliibn requirements for inter-agency
inter-working. If trends continue these volume requirements wiU eventualty cost-justify
wideband (13) capacity between Phnfx and Tucson. The agencytadministrative community
does not require wideband fmm a functiomlpointof-view but will be able to cast-&stir). wideband
on the major traffic carrying Unk of a 'oommodi services utility network.
Once wideband capability is established addiiional agency-based traffic will fbw to the network. A
wideband link would support the 'imagingm applications requirements between these on-network
bcations. Additionally, with 'cheap bandwidth' (IE. costlcapacity) made available by the T3 the
transport cost component of video conference services will no bnger be an issue; and the bng
expressed desire for this service between Phoenix and Tucson could be more easily cost-justified.
Additionally, T3 network functionality would support distributed computer processing
center capability, for bad-sharing and contingency recovery, if agency management wished to
consider this network design allemative with Tucson as the second site.
Separate from the agency requirements is the education community's functional requirement for
wideband to advance some of it's goals. The universities already have application requirements
for wideband between campuses. But these requirements can not cost-justify a wide-area
wideband network within the priorities of the educational budget; nor would this use of funds align
with the stated primacy of 'equitys in teaching services to the rural communities. So the
universities constitute a community that could use, though not necessarily install and operate, a
wideband 'utilitym network link between Phoenix and Tucson, and they would most likely prefer to
be a consumer, not provider of these services.
With these points in mind, the primary focus of the utility network should be that it provide
'mrnmodity' services to the agencytadministrative end-user, offering cost-efficient narrowband
communications services; and secondarily, it should provide cost-justified narrowband and
wideband services, both MAN and WAN, to serve the agency requirement for new services (EG.
imaging). Wihin this charter it will also be positioned to support the education requirement for
both commod'dy voice and data services - network-wide, and for wideband services between
Phoenix and Tucson.
Jhe Na~owband Hvbrid Utllltv Net-
The dominant utility network application & the Vad'iionar administrative application, characterized
by query/response access to centralized databases; and this application can be effectively and
economically served by 'narrowband" transport (DSOKI) technologies.
Narrowband transport services can be supported from either dedicated leased line or switched
facilities; and the utility network should rely on, and leverage, public network-based switched
services, where economically indicated, as a means of extending the 'reachnof utility network
senrices. Extending the reach of the network will expand the user-base for all network services
and beneficialty effect the economic of all services; but il also otfers mana~ednetwork
functionally, standards and services to bcatiions that are not now being served.
High-speed data transport services are also available from the public carriers, both LEC and IEC
canSers. Switched 56Kbps (cirarit switched) is availafAe now and Frame RehyFast P-t data
sewices are being readied to provide 'usage-sensitivem data services where dedicated leased line
wwices are not economical. Other CO-based 'applicationm services - processing, routing,
gateway to external network and database services - can be expected fmm the both IEC and LEC
C m W S as part of their Virtual Private Network (VPN) thrust, and should be seen as service
~ e ~ a t i v ewsh,e re they are economically attractive. These VPN services do not alter the 'private-
network' status, and flavor, of the utility network, and the VPN services are managed and
oontrolled by the utility network.
The utility network should be a hybrid network that incorporates public network f&k'ties and
ryrplication senices to support the utility network operating phibsophy. lhk hybrid network can
be I'na~gedby a single state entity to serve the oommon objective of the agencies. Public
canter-based transport fadbties extend the reach of the utility network by providing Public-network-
based support for switched (dial-up) access to agency processing and network services
that can not be oost-justify leased line access. Public carrier-based application services extend
the reach of the utility network by providing publicnetwork based applications that are not
available, or oost-justified, from the private utility-network intelligence.
For the most part the primary implementation of the hybrid network concept will be to use public
&+place facilities that are 'usage sensitive', at "feature groupm or other contracted bebw-tariff
rates, to extend utility-network services to agency locations that do not cost-justify dedicated
transport facilities or CPE-based hardware. But il also provides the state implementation
aflematives that mitigate to some extent the constraints of capital budget or manpower; and il may
be the quickest, or best, way to provide some specific services to some agency bcations.
This utility network will provide cost-bstified widebandservices, and not be limited to just iow-speed
and narrowband services. The traffic volume requirements for 'administrativem agency-network
applications between Phoenix and Tucson are growing at a rate that, if the trends
continues, will wst-justiq wideband (T3) capacity in a few years. The agencyladministrative
community, which does not currently require a wideband network from an application functional
requirement point-of-view, will be able to cost-justify wideband on a cost of service basis. This will
allow the 'utility netwofkmtofu nctionally support the agencies' emerging requirements for
imaging, video conferencing, high-speed data and other LAN services over a wide area network
(WAN); and also serve many WAN wideband education-network requirements.
The education comrnun'rty's interest in wideband on a utility network is not limited to the WAN
capabilities between Phoenix and Tucson. They view with at least as much interest the availability
of MAN wideband within Phoenix and Tucson. Certainly, WAN wideband between Phoenix and
Tucson would support the universities and educational communities there. But the MAN services
were of particular interest to the university mmmunity because il could effectively support inter-working
with the scientific and business community. Two examples envisioned were: off-campus
access to collegial work within research and funding organuations in the businesslscientific
community; and the delivery of "higher bandwidthmim plementations of educationavteaching
sewices to the enpbyees of the business community, and the student population at community
colleges. Certainty within a MANICampus-like environment there are two-way full motion
gdistance learning' technologies that can be depbyed with the economic constraints.
Though a successful, cost-efficient, gutilityg network will eventually attract and carry education-network
wideband services il should evolve from the agency-network application requirements.
Likewise, the general topology and network archlecture of that network should evolve from the
technobgy and facilities base of the network arnentty addressing inter-agency needs: the ITN
backbone network.
The utility network should evolve as a natural extension of the mJ network Although the current
application requirements of the agencies can be supported without a utility network, by existing
technobgies and 'infoW de facto inter-agency inter-working arrangements, there are
oconomk and operational advantages to supporting these inter-agency needs from a single
organizational entity thal is chadered to support the nowprocessing center based services, and
the emerging requirements for new, enhanced network service, via the utility network concept.
As a chartered entity the utility network organization will alkw itself to take on an identity beyond
that of being a dnwit provider.
. In tt's dmplest form the utility network is a transport network of multiplexers and Ti links, providing
concentration and transport management services. The utilrty network concept though can
evolve beyond the basic backbone transport service concept. In a sligM variation of this basic
theme the network access nodes can be enabled to make real-time decisions of how best choose
from among several alternate of public or private service options, or bandwih allocation
schemes. In a more advanced form the utility network would implement a different levels of
network processiWswitching capabilities, network intelligence, in the different nodes of the
network.
Whatever it's organizational vision and charter the utility network should encompass the concept
that it is a Yiered-services' network, where different nodes support different capabiliiies. There
currently is a physical structure inplace, and paralleled in the public network, to support three
distindly different levels, or types, of application services: dial-up, bw-speed, and high-speed
data (0-56Kbps); narrowband (56Kbps-1 .SMbps); wideband (1.5Mbps-45Mbps). There will be
some agency locations where wideband services are supported, and others where onty bw-speed,
or dialup, data services are available.
The utility network should support these three levels of services from the nodes of the network.
And conceptually, it can be view that there should be three types of network nodes, which for lack
of better tens we'll call: 'senrice centef nodes, 'concentration' nodes, and 'access' nodes.
'Service Center would be the highest level node and would likely be implemented in Phoenix
and later in Tucson. These nodes support MAN-type services and extend the reach of the
network over a combination of dedicated and switched (publidprivate) resources; these are
primarily narrowband capabilities tofirom 'off-network' offices and end-users. 'Concentration" is
the second level node and are envisioned at a number of locations where traffic volume and fbw
pattern suggest their value. There bcations, primarily ad to concentrate tratfic onto the backbone
and service networks; but can support optimized routing and service capability, depending on the
operation philosophy of the network management. 'Accessm nodes are the end-user view of the
utility network. These can be any device that allows 'standard" access to the senrice network.
Figures 4.1,4.2,4.3 and 4.4 suggest a possible scenario where the three types of nodes are
deployed to implement the utility network concept.
The general topology and architecture of the utility network is depicted in Figure 4.1. And,
much like the 7-node ITN blueprint, folbws the population centers of the state. However, there is
a recognition that the services supported at different nodes will be diierent. That wideband -
sewices will be supported between Phoenix and Tucson (and possibly flagstaff), and that
nanowband (DSOK1) will be supponed over the nodes to other hrge cities; but that access from
off-node, or at the less populated offices will be supported by bwer-bandwidth services (Figure
4.1 b).
Figure 4.2 represents the bandwidth requirements, and the anticipated future implementation
Of T3 on the Phoenix-Tucson link. Except for the Phoenix-Tucson link the backbone network will
likely be a Mnwvband network (Tl). This will depend on the senrice phibsophy of network
management, and the economics of distributed processing, routing and gateway capabilities. If
transport service cost drop ~ignif'iicantly, there would be less need for "concentration" nodes and
distributed eenrices; and access point would then home-into Phoenix directly.
Flgun 4.3 w e s t s the level of data support avalhble on the network, and for the sake of
ugument lists mtions where, at least from the education-network's pointof-view, end-user
services are expected. A commodity utility network could support kw-speed and high-speed
data services to serve the K12 schools or community colleges requirement, as well as support the
agency community data requirements. fhe fundionat suppott available from both public and
private based krplementations are appropriate to serve the overwhelming majority of application
requirements.
. Figure 4.4 indicates a possible im~lementations cenario on the hybrid utility network; and is
based on the 7-node ilN backbone network plan proposed in January 1987. In this scenario
there are two =service center nodes in Phoenix and Tucson, and five "concentration" nodes in
Flagstaff, W~nslow, Fbrence, Douglas and Yuma.
The nodes in Phoenix and Tucson would not only provkle wideband transport between these
cities over the T3 link, but would also support city-wide MAN requirements (DSOKI). Access to
the utility network services would be supported from both private and public based facilities.
These nodes would also provide "gateway" services to public-network services, and are points-of-presence
(POP) to the LEC for "corporate tamer based access. [Figure 3.12 is reproduced
here to indicate the hybrid nature of the metro-hub. Access to utility network functional and
management services over the public network from "off-net" bcations is indicated at A, B and C].
The "concentration" nodes in the other sites implement a functionality-sets that depend on the
management philosophy, economics and availability of specific services. The decision to
implement a private-based concentration node over a public-based node will depend on the
availability, economics and functional equivalence of the public capability. Certainly, if function
requirements are minimal, for example if only multiplexing is required at these sites, then this will
be widely available from the public provider at a price that can be compared to private based
multiplexing. If bcal-site intelligence and routing services are also required, based on the
evolving network service philosophy, then private-based resources may be functionally
necessary to provide these capabilities.
Access point a Concentration Node
0 Service Center
Figure 4.1
Narrowband Service8
.- Wideband Service8
Low-rpeed Data 3
i A
L o w - a ~ e r d a- e4Kbpa
Narrowband a- 1.64Mbp8
Wldrband am 48Mbp8
Figure 4.lb
Figure 4.2
Window Ro
Clinton
Casa Grande
Safford
0 ::;;::: b o n c o n t r a t ~ o n Wide band
oorvIcor Services
Lm-aP00d re 84Kbp
N-arrowband ' 0 1.764Mbpr Wldoband a= 46Mbpr Vista
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 3.12
5. NETWORK RECOMMENDAT IONS
Based on our analysis of the arrrent and evolving network functional requlrements, and our
m6msment of the operational environment we w l d offer the following recommendations as
action Items:
1 InWtute r note-wlde communlcatlons "utlllty" notwork
deslgned to support the rgencles' rdmlnlstratlve
rppllcations tunctlonal requlrements.
2) Support "commodltyw volco and data transport rervlces only.
Offer the utility network as a means of inprovlng the cost of deploying
bask, traditional, currently available transport services; not as a means of
providing additional functionality to the agencies (this doesn't seem to be
a mandate for the agency networks). Become the equivalent of the "plain
old telephone' service provider to the agencies, supporting inter-agency
operability and bwest-cost services compared to external vendors of
these services. Support narrowband (56Kbpsfl .5Mbps) data services
from the Ti -based N network. Suppott bw-speed and dial-up data via
X.25 packet service. Address the K12 education community voice and
bw-spewdial-up data requirements via these commodity services.
Support new commodity-based application sentices; as examples: inter-agency
E-mail and networked voice-mail.
3) Implement the utility network concept from the current mode
CPE-based ITN network. Continue to support CPE-based solutions
(multiplexers) and dedicated TI access at nodes that cost justrfy
"concentration" onto the backbone. Focus on the inter-nodal transport
services only (initially); focus specifically on the backbone requirements
between Phoenix and Tucson. Continue to deploy leased line to bring
traffic onto the network nodes; begin to consider VPN and usage-sensitive
public services to bring "off-net' bw-speed data to the network
nodes.
4) Implement the Utility Network as a Hybrid Network. The utility
network should support the agency functional requirements from a mix of
public-based and private-based resources. Some public-based "usage
sensitive" offerings will support the agency requirement in the most cost-effective
way; consider these implementation options. The hybrid
networlc should enable functional equivalence, seamless inter-working
between publiirivate implementations, and allow the state to make
decisions that are based soiefy on the economics of functionally
equivalent implementation options.
6) Extend the "reach" of the utllfty network by leveraging Hybrid
Optlons. Deploy services beyond the 5-node ITN backbone.
Investigate the capabilities and economics of publiccarrier transport and
VPN services to extend the utility network.
8) Implement the 7~nodeI lN model. Investigate both bwer
bandwidth CPE-based options and public-network attematives
for Yuma and Winsbw. Some of the possible service options are:
CPE-based stat-mx; IECAEC or CPE-based packet service;
3@-porty Value Addrd Networla. I these prove attractive,
conskier other locations for these service options.
b) Support Narrowband-based Metro-rnrs crpabllitles In
Phoenlx md Tucson. Support On-net to On-net access for
bw-speed (diil-up) and high-speed data (56Kbps) services.
Consider supporting LANILAN requirements via dedicated or
switched 56Kbps services. Support previously non-supported
office complexes for voice and data services from VPN or
corporate carrier service capabilities. Consider the university
tequirement of bn-net to off-netms ervices tor voice and data
8ccess to the business/scientific community.
c) Support low-speed data and volce sefflces from publlc
network access points. Leverage the public network to
provide network access for bw-speed, dial-up, data services.
Consider alternative diil-up access services with the public
networks (EG. corporate carrier services). Offer bw-speed data,
and off-netfon-net voice support to the K12 education
commnity. Manage, public network-based hybrid utility services
from the utility network.
6) Establish Access Standards that foster Publlc-Private
functional equlvaience and inter-worklng. Consider X.25 as the
standard for dial-up, and bw-speed, data access to the utility network.
Consider X.25 as the access standard to external networks. Consider
Frame Relay Packet services for higher speed requirements - 56Kbps to
Tl. Investigate pubk-network availability and cost of Frame RelayfFast
Packet services. investigate publidprivate technologies inter-working
and compatibility.
7) Deploy CPE-technologies that lnter-work wlth publlc network-based
technologies. Avoid 'nichew solutions; deploy technologies
that are moving towards a common view. Support ~ m ~ b adnatad
(DSO/T1) services on-net between nodes via TI muttiplexers that plan to
support Fast PacketlFrame Relay services. Support the transport and
aggregation of low-speed requirements (c56Kbps) to the other network
nodes, and onto the backbone from a X.25 packet switched technology.
Support access to 'e'extemar networks and network services via public-based
X.25 packet services.
8) Develop mpabllltles that foster tholce In 88rvlce and access
options to the publlc-networks. Consider expanding the role of
the existing SL100 and make it the utility network gateway to the public
8ervice providers via a .mrporate carrier servicemim plementation. The
capitol mall-based SLI 00 can look to the public network as either a LEC
Central Wee (CO) or Access Tandem (AT) or as an IEC Point of
Presence (IEC-POP). This would offer the state several optkns to
manage, access and inter-uvorklng with public network resources.
@) Support wideband services between Phoenlx and Tucson.
There are currently four T 1 circuits between Phoenix and Tucson.
Suppod for predicted traffic growth will cost-justify a T3 in four or five
years. At that tkne krstJl T3 and support wideband sewices to both the
agency and education communities.
10) Ikvalop 8 peer-relatlonrhlp with tho publlc natwork service
provlden. The state should devebp a relationship with the public
providers that drives the deployment of needed services and capabilities.
The state should obtain the Yechnokgy and services rollout* plan of the
sewice p~viders- L EC, IEC and ad pany VAN pwm: and I slarld
hnplement It's CPE-based technoiogies from an understanding of these
schedules and technologies.
11) Bulld tha organlzstlonal Charter and lntersgency Infra-
8tructura that wlll foster an operational sensltlvlty to the
agencies' needs, yet mrve the management mandate of the
mte. The organizational charter must reflect the functional mandate to
support all inter-city, and *off-netlon-net' transport services for voice,
data and compressed video services to the agencies.
APPENDIX 1
INTERVIEW WORK SHEET
Agency Mlulon & Focus
Business Foars and end-user needs
Organization structure, operating environment
Current Business Services Focus
Current Business Planning - Next 3 years
Role of Communications in Support of Business Plan
Communications: Planning & lmplernentation
Communications: Measures of Perfomnce / Success
Agency Appllcatlon Portfollo:
Current Application Portfolio
Constraints and Bottlenecks to Services
Future Application Portfolio
Constraints to Future Se~cesD eployment
Performance Measures: End-User Services & Agency rnetrics
Finance: Capital & Expense Budgets
Processes: Budgeting and Justification (ROR, Cost reduction, operating
necessity, etc.)
Agency Operating Envlronment:
Communication's Organization, Manpower Skills, and Operating Environment
Services Distribution Network Requirements
Current Enabling Technologies
Restrictions to Services (manpower, budget, technology, organization, infra-structure)
Future Services: Technologies Platform
Communications Planning Environment (intradept)
Performance Measures: End-User and Departmental
Finances: Capital & Expense Budgets and Processes
Inter-Agency Issues & Operatlng Requirements:
Current Inter-Agency Requirements
Future Inter-Agency Plans
Inter-Agency Technology: Platform, Standards, Inter-operability, Functional
Equivalence
Inter-Departmental infra-structure: how are inter-agency service requirements,
and project, planned, implemented and operated
Inter-Agency Network Management Issues
Perfonnance Measures: End-User services and Departmental metrics
Finances: Capital & Expense Budgets and Processes
Communlcatlonr Network Management bsues:
Wncy Management: Future Vision
Current network management: Phibsophy & methods
Management Requlrements Vs Methods and Tools
Corwunicatbns Usage Tracking & Billing Phibsophy
-aJmy
BadwfYDisaster Recovery
Managing Muttiple Technologies: Copper, Cable, Satellite, Microwave, Fiber
Managing M u l t i Application Networks: LAN, MAN, WAN
Manpower Requirements: levels and skills
Objectives and Measures: Financial, Sewices Deployment, Performance Metrics
Network Descrlptlve lnformatlon
The following is a partial list of the type d supporting doarmentation that would help us develop
ihe quanttfiicatkn to support the decision processes. If this type of information k available we
would like each agency to provide tt, on a confidential basis, so that we can include It in the
analysis.
Network Descrlptlve Data: Quantlflables 6 Declslon Factors:
Drawings, charts, topology of current network
# of network users by location (Mpr sites only)
# staffIcentraliied?l accessfinterface to users
Staff skills requirementbreakdown
Current applications delivered to sites
Traffic growth anticipated (traditional)
TraffWechnobgy Impact of new servicelapplications
New Application service descriptions 8 performance requirements
Availability of Parallel Service Networks
CapabilAies/Constraints of Parallel Service Networks
"Buying Transport Services' Issues:
Another State Agency Vs External Sources
Interdepartmental operation 8 Ownership
APPENDIX 2
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Arthur Ashton: Special Assistant for Strategic Planning
Arizona State University
Lee Frischknecht: Assistant General Manager KAET
Maricopa Community Colleges
Jan Balker: Director, Computing & Communications
Northern Arizona University
Dr. Edward Groenhout: Dean of College of Creative and Communication Arts
University of Arizona:
Robert Leach: Director of Telecommunications
Dr. Larry Rapagnani: Associate Vice President for Communication Information
Systems
Dr. William Noyes: Vice President of Academic Affairs
Washington School District
Dr. Ruth Catalano: Director of Instructional Materials
GOVERNMENT AGFNCIES:
Department of Administration
Larry Beauchat: Manager, Communications
Matt Whittington: Communications Network Engineer
Ray Espana: EDP Telecommunications Specialist
Department of Corrections
Robert Sharpe: Manager, EDP Program Management
Department of Education
Kathryn Kilroy: Administrator, Technology Services
Edward Sloat: Deputy Associate Superintendent, Research & Development
Department of Economic Security
Gary Leff : Telecom Specialist
Roy Merrill: Manager, Technical Support
Department of Land
Lynn Larson: Administrative Service Officer
Bob Miner: Technical Support Specialist
Curtis Overall: Supervisor, Computer Operations
Gary Irish: Manager, Systems and Programming
Department of Health Services
Robert Cooper: Manager, EDP
John Srnalling: Manager, Systems and Programming
Jack Wiechert: Technical Support Specialist
Department of Public Safety
Curt Baer: Manager, Telecommunications Bureau
Curt Knight: Manager, Telephone and Data Services
Department of Revenue
DaroM Bamese: Manager, Systems and Programming
Randy Lyon: Manager, Technical Support
Department of, Transportation
John McDowell: Manager, lnformation Systems
John Amidon: Manager, Technical Support
Department of Water Resources
Frank Secondo: Manager, lnformation Systems
Howard Billings: Technical Support Specialist
(mice of Attorney General
Jeannie Miller: Director, Computer Services
Peter Hays: Technical Support Specialist
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
Department of Administration: State of Arizona Automation Report (1/91)
Department of Education: Arizona Telecommunications Survey Report
Department of Health Services: Management lnformation Systems Three Year Plan 1990
-1 993
Department of Transportation: lnformation Services Group Three Year Plan 1990 - 1993
A Study of Resource Sharing in the state of Arizona - Optimizing Library Dollars (7190)
Arizona Education Telecommunications Cooperative: A Report for a State-wide Network
(1190)
Arizona Public Schools Instructional Programming Needs Update (TI1 Report 2/90)
Educational Issues in Arizona: "Building Learning Bridges Through Technology"
prepared for the AETC by Norman Wagner, Ph.D. (9189)
Education Telecommunications in Arizona: A Recommendation of the Needs
Subcommittee of the Telecommunications Task Force of the AETC (4188)
TIEDS (Technology Integrated Educational Delivery System) A K-12 Master Plan for the
infusion of technology into Arizona schools in the Teachingkearning
Environment (7/90)
INTERVIEW NOTES
AETC (ARIZONA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION COOPERATIVE)
Full motion analog video (teaching)
Inter-University high-speed data services
K12 voice and data services
Intercommunity college data services
Network connectivity (voice and data)
State-wide MAN network service
Needs access services to Public Switched Network Service (PSN)
Needs access to other agency (stateAed) databases and services
K12 data needs not being served
Needs video connection to universities (teaching)
Needs data access to universities (high-speed)
Need data access to K12 (low-speed)
Need MAN connectivity/functionality around community colleges
Wants "integration" of voice and data services
K12 need data access between K12 and access to external data services
Budget
Manpower constraints
Wants to use not ownloperate communication services
Plannina.
imaging
large file transfer (records, certification info)
es or "wish" 1.s t Services.
Needs physical state-wide communications network to connect universities,
community colleges, public schools (K12) and government agencies.
Would like that to be "seamless" network, as easy to use as telephone
network. Would have to serve multiple applications, and multiple
technologies. (i.e. broadband utility network - FiberlSONET-based
services)
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
rt
LAN support services within Phoenix and Tucson
LAN to Host services
Legal support (Voice and Data) from fieM offices in Phoenix and Tucson
Environmental Law (database access to external services)
Legal Database access (other states, federal, external services and private law
off ices)
Video conference
Low-speed data access to host (~56Kbps)
Dialup access to external services and database (eg. legal reference libraries)
High-bandwidth data transfer (document and image)
Voice mail
Text mail
50% (or more) of communication requirement is off network (voice and data)
Reduce paperwork
Integrating different technologies (wang, IBM, external hosts, external networks)
$300,000 budget for capital expense
Budget
Manpower
Planning environment (no bng term planning)
Plannlna.
growth of word processing
imaging applications
Document transfer applications (high-bandwidth)
More inter-agencylinter-working requirements
ved Nee- . * l.is t Services.
Tucson may become regional support center and require more communications
and computer inter-workinglsupport
Hard to get new things to happen
Often Re-active not Pro-active on technology
No formal budgetlallocation process, hence no effective technology planning
process
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
. . nt f
Broadcast quality Video (full motion analogue)
KU-band satellite "looks good"
Need to improve process (teachingllearning tools)
Need to reduce paperworldprocess
Teacher certification
Adult education
Inter-agency requirements (administrative, reporting)
Inter-statelfederal requirements
Access to external educational services: federal and other state govts; research
networks; library services; document transfer services
Standards (TCIICP)
Application inter-working just becoming an issue
LANkAN communications
EQUITY: how to addresskupport
DOE does very good planning on uses of t'echnology but has no budget to
spend on technology (grantslexternal funding sources)
No budget
No support manpower to operate services
Plans:
"Imaging" applications (fingerprint info on teachers)
Satellite Kit for schools: for about $5,000 per school - downlink, monitors, PC to
operate, modem and phone line to CO
Teleconferencing
Wide are network between universities (broadband)
Access to external educational services: federal and other state govts; research
networks; library services; document transfer services
DOE wants DOA to operatelmanage statewide service network
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS:
porninant A~~lication/Su~R~eoaruiir ements fNow1Future):
Inter-agency reporting and database access (HRMS, AFIPS)
Mainframe application support
Large state-wide CICSt3270 applicationlnetwork with state-wide regional
concent ration
Data network vehicle to reduce cost of operations ("one new application saving
$1 O,OOO/month*)
Growth of voice traffic (paralleling growth of correction system population)
LANs are beginning to be installed
Evolving new "distributed" services
erns;
Inter-agency inter-working (eg. inter-agency data transfer via tape; or batch dump,
etc. limited functionality)
Inter-agency inter-working (eg. security)
elam
Image processing and new image application deployment over the network
(fingerprint)
More volume on network: (eg. "Florence today one TI, Florence 1995 twonhree
Ti supporting administrative growth (HRMS, AFIPS); plus even more if
image applications centralized)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY:
Analog microwave system moving to digital
Microwave support to other agencies (56Kbps)
Emerging inter-agency applications
Inter-agency reporting applications (HRMS, AFIPS)
Inter-Federal government applications
SecurityIEncryption
High-bandwidth application coming (imaging)
External database and services (securiiy)
Video (but, security)
Security is number one operational issue
Capacity of analog system is "max'd out"
moving to digital backbone
Planning for large bandwidth applications (image)
Security on Fiber questioned
Security concerns will preclude many of the public network, and utility network
service options (NTI concern not expressed by DPS)
Standards
Hardly a constraint DPS is only agency with large staff to support their
communications network
Ems.&
Digital microwave backbone
Planning for new application requirement (imaging and other
widebandfbroadband services)
esolved N e e d l l mo r "w.~ s*h .
Way to make use of non-DPS network options and not breach security concerns
(NTI concern not expressed by DPS)
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES:
rt Re-
Inter-active to Host applications (CICS)
LAN to Host (Token ring13745)
Inter-agency reporting (HRMS, AFIPS)
Traffic growth on the CICS network
Large database applications coming (geographical system information - batch
transfer to processing center at mall)
Inter-agency batch requirements
Growing need for "conversational" access and transfer (replace batch)
Image applications would tax existing transport capability
Need dial-up services (bw-speed) to office automation system (PRIME)
External database info provider to other agencies and Federal database systems
USGS large bulk transfer requirements
Low-speed services only services available to some bcations
Plans:
lmaging application support (over ClCS network?)
esolved N - or "w.~ shl ~sSt endus I .
Video conference to Tucson
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
New high-bandwidth applications envisioned (transponders, automated traffic
sensing, etc.)
Tucson district office requirements growing
Tucson as bcal net gateway to ITN backbone and mainframe
Large file transfer applications
Inter-agency inter-working (growing list of inter-agency database applications)
External data base applications with 50 state government and federal
government (history file access and batch update applications)
External database applications to Insurance companies)
Magnetic tape (mandate) accessltransfer applications
Large and growing transactional application support on ClCS network
and Conceras;
Standards on external database access and transfer
Standards within inter-agency database applications
BudgetingIPlanning for inter-agency applications
Support requirements of new planned image applications (transponders)
Agency ownership of shared data in inter-agency database applications
Management responsibility in inter-agency applications and distribution
Budget
Manpower to own and operate a communication network
Technology capability exceeds network capability (remote access totfrom
transponder, license plate imaging to database applications)
Em%
growth of ClCS data traffic
New traditional applications
New high-bandwidth applications coming
Smart card drivets license
Imaging applications (transponders)
Video (compressed video OK)
Standards between agencies and External database sources and applications
WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Need more telephone and fax
Need to support Inter-library ban
Inter-exchange of records (effect of migrant and seasonal nature of population)
Data (low-speed) to Host (WANG)
Need stand-alone microcomputers, applestPC, commidore 64, Amiga, anything
Need site specific LAN to support PCs
Need inter-site LAN (low speed) between schools
Need comprehensive plan and funding
Need some inter-connect to state and federal agencies
Need upgraded voice services (auto-attendant, voice mail, telephones in
classroom, call waiting, LAN for on-site data connectivity and external
network access - switchfin house wire ok as LAN)
One way videoKwo way audio (language instruction)
Basic Intra-district communications f Some inter-district
Inter-agency access: Education, Courts, DOA, etc.
FundingIBudget
95% of current budget goes to every day needs (eg. salaries)
Telephones to classroom
Data (low-speed) between schools/libraries
Low-speed data to community colleges and universities
w n a l Constraints:
Does not want to own network
No Manpower or focus to be operator of communication/computer services
Plans.
, lsstetp : computers in the classmorn
2n d step: on-site connectivity (LAN - maybe switch as LAN and gateway)
3rd step: Inter-site networking (intra-school district)
4t h step: Long distance network (inter-schooled district and beyond)
ved N e wor W t.s h *l.~ sSt ervices:
Telephones to classroom
Data (low-speed) between schoolsllibraries
Low-speed data to community colleges and universities
data services to external database (libraryleducational services)
More enlightened use of available technologies to augment the education
process (comers to automate repetitive drill learning; visuallgraphic to
augment text; access to wider pool of teaching services via
communications)
A single state-wide network operated by a single agency would be a "dream"
BOARD OF REGENTS:
Need to support University network applications - NAU, ASU and UA
Need access to other state educational network
Need access to NSF network
Need video conferencing capability with universities in Arizona.
See major enrollment growth in the next two decades and the need for extensive
inter-connection of education institutions for data, video and imaging
needs.
Ban&
AETC as focal point for statewide education telecommunications view open to
creative solutions that will encourage the development of a network that
will meet education needs.
Y nresQlyed N&esmus or WEJ-I
* . 8 , . 1st Services;
Sources of financing an education telecommunications network.
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY - KAET (EDUCATIONAL TV CHANNEL 8)
mminant A~~licationlSu~R~eoarutir ements (NowIFuture):
TV Educational programming broadcast via Satellite
CollegelUniversity classes (broadcast)
N Picture Quality
Need to broadcast shows where quality of picture same as entertainment TV
quality (hold audience (eg. compressed video will not do)
Need to broadcast more courses, volume and variety (eg. more air time, more
channels)
mS4
More broadcast time, more broadcast course
esol- Nee- or "w.is hI .l~ sSt e r v u
Cable delivery of course work (broadband to student)
Possible two-way inter-active if broadbandlcable
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY (NAU)
EQUllY via Satellite and microwave distribution network
Full motion video broadcast to the rural part of state
Choice and quantity of education courses to address needs of rural communities
(particular emphasislcharter)
Videofsatellite courses (rural area of state)
Extensive satellite/microwave capability
Extension support for A & M programs to farminglranching community
Carry (videofieaching) nursing master's program from ASU and UA
Foreign language initiative - Teachinglanguage
Funding/Budget - with more could do more
al Constrarnts.
Want more extensive reach, more network
Want to broadcast more course, more air time, reach more people
Analog microwave - would like to more to other technology
Plans.
Extending reach of system
More course more air time
more analogue microwave
Explore use of VBI (vertical blanking interval) of N signal to carry bulk and inter-active
data applications via TV broadcast
Data-share with other universities
solved Need/lssus or -w.lsh ,,l.is t Sewus,
Needs satisfied via variety of technology
Eventually needs satisfied via lelephone-like" services (once broadband
network in place)
Fiber-based broadband network Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tucson
Broadband WAN between NAU, UA, ASU (appear as single campus from data, image,
video and voice point of view)
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (TUCSON)
nt . .
Broadband application support for teaching
Broadband support for medical imaging to hospital and between med. schools
Broadband support for scientific application support inter-university applications
NSFnet application support within metro-area to bridge between networks and
off-campus communities (ie.to externalloff-net scientific/business
community for research sharing and TV quality instruction. Network =
"roads and utilities to attract and keep high-tech, highquality business in
state.
Extend high-band broadband data services for rnedicaVscientific community
needs (eg. all observatories linked for data collection and simultaneous
resource access - gigabits of data)
Teaching (full motion video, beginning to think about compressed video, but not
there yet)
Medical imaging applications to support Medical schooVnurse teaching across
hospital (university hospital and private hospitals)
Large database transport (batch)
Video conference capability (needed)
cerns;
Standards (video codex for conferencing)
Need technology/communications ties to business/scientific community
corlstraints.
FundingfBudget
Network operationslstaffing not really part of charter
State-wide telewmm infra-structure not in place
Plans.
Broadband WAN to support universities-wide campus (NAU, ASU, UA)
Broadband to remote research facilities
Broadband to other educational institution outside of Arizona
Scientific application network to research facilities throughout state (observatory
example, university-wide parallel processing computer network, etc.)
Extend reach of carnpus-like communications network to business communities
for teaching and research inter-working (keep high-tech business in
state, keep high-quality employees "Roads and Utilities*)
Single organization for statewide communications services (AETC-based)
1. Agency Mission: Weft are
2. Focus (1 -5 years):
3. Role of Communications:
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Cunent :
. Voice - via DOA (Phoenix Mall only) . Child support system (LANs + gateways + 3270 emulation)
. AZTEC - Food stamp program
. Long term care . Unemployment insurance
Job services . FMCS (Financial Management Control System) - accounting . Developmental disabilities . ChiWaudit protection services . Training environment
GrowWNew: . Imaging: none, but would like to use it for UI documents . Video: none, because not cost effective; but would like to have it in Flagstaff, Yurna,
Tucson and ??
5. Inter-Agency Requirements:
. DOR (host-to-host)
. ADOT (host-to-host)
DOA (host-to-host) . City of Phoenix - SNI (Seriesll)
FederaVHUD - SNA
FederaVIRS - dial ups
6. Operating Environment: - Uses DPS (Dept of Public Safety) microwave services to Tucson, Navaho reservations,
etc. - 168 locations state-wide (line speeds < 9.6Kbps) - Hitachi EX100 (88 MIP machine) - may be adding EX180 with 50 MIPS
3745
- 3725 (2)
DPS 6
Sl3 6
AS1400 - Wang - NBI (word processing) - satellite link to Martin Marietta for Federal interstate unemployment insurance
SN AISDLC
Netview 2.1 - 30 LANs: Novell Netware, Ethernet, Token Ring ARCNET - gateway with 3270 emulation
- 1F5ib0e0r Twookreknst aRtiinogn so n the Mall - IBM LAN Manager
350 controllers - 4878 terminals (75% remote) - access to multiple hosts - 890 printers
1-. Agencpyr oMviidses ioKn-1: 2 educational services equitablylfairly to the State. 8O0I0o f all students are
within the metropolitan areas. Colleges/universities are not under the DOE.
2. Focus (1 -5 years):
3. Role of Communications:
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Current: . Video - studio for training and teleconferencing; uses satellite on Ku-upband
GmvWNew: . Voice processing - ACD and application for searching databases . Imaging - used to storelretrieve teacher certification information (diploma, photo, finger
prints, etc). Need to be accessible in both Phoenix and Tucson. . Would also like to have ability to transferlaccess student transcripts across schools . ASAP (Arizona Student Assessment Program) - createsJadminister standardized testing
for students
5.- Inter-Anegeedn cfoyr R ineteqruairgeemnecyn tesl:e ctronic mail - connections to other state's agencies and to the federal government
6. Operating Environment:
Installed base:
. 1 DPS 6+ with 28-30 terminals connected, primarily use for batch processing
. 125 connections on an Appletalk LAN
. 7 Ethernet (either thin Ethernet or 10baseT) LANs running 3C0m NOS; interconnected
- Nveiatw ToCrPk AmPa nagement Philosophy: would like the DoA to manage the networks - Access to New Technology: would like to connect to the fiber network in the Capitol Mall
DFPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
1. Agency Mission:
services the public health needs of all Arizonans - consoldiates several agencies into a single department with responsibilities including:
. maternal and child heatth programs
. communicable disease control . laboratory services
. behavioral heatth services
2. Focus (1 -5 years): - a bt of programs listed in the three-year plan, but actual implementation will be done
according to availability of funds
3. Role of Communications: - significant
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Current:
. Voice - POTS, provided by DOA . Various computer applications
. WIC (Women, Infants 8 Childred) program - prints food stamps remotely to 105 branches
(fixed and mobile sites)
GrowtNNew :
. FHAMIS (Family Heafth Automated Management Information System) - being
implemented in conjunction with Ernst 8 Young. It is an on-line system that links data from
various DHS programs. A kt of the WIC functionalities will be migrated to this system once
it is implemented,
5.-- Inter-AADHgOeCAnC vcSiya R(liAnekrqi zuoirneam Heenatslt:h Cost Containment System) using tapes -- DDOEST fvoiar ctaepnessu sfo pr rdoejeacthti oinnfos r(mbiartthiofdne ath)
6. Operating Environment:
Installed base:
1 IBM 4381
2 DPS 6+ to be combined into a DPS 6000
2 NBI word processing systems (to be converted)
uses DOA's DPS 8, but is converting to own systems as funding permits. System
connected to a DPS 6+ via 19.2 Kbps link
56 Kbps link connect to state hospital to access PACE (Patient Accounting and
Clinical Enquiry System) and TRACTS, a record tracking system.
. dial up FAX machines
LANs & PCs in various agencies: 4-EMS (Emergency Medical Service), 1-FHS
(Family Health Services), 1-State Lab. LANs are either Ethernet or Arcnet, and
interconnected via bridges and comm servers (3C0m) - C. noon simidaegrsin sge -r vciocen spirdoevriedde dto boy e DxpOeAn stoiv De epartment poor
DEPARTMENT OF LAND
1. Agency Mission: - manage the state's land (9.5M acres) and maximize the revenues (lease, sale, minerals)
from those land - manage and protect other resources such as water rights, hydrology, state and private
forests, etc. - manage state prisons and cemeteries - responsible for the fire fighting function
2. Focus (1 -5 years): - no reaVrnajor changes except for the GIs (geographic information system), which is a
database that contains various layers of geographic info. Datafor certain layers of the GIs
will be provided by diferent agencies, and the GIs is to be available to all agencies as
appropriate.
3. Role of Communications: - since the GIs will be made available to other agencies, there needs to be a means to allow
other agencies' PCs, workstations and other communicating devices to access the host
where the GIs resides.
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Current:
. Voice - currently has POTS; just converted to touch-tone system recently. Do not see a
need for any major features in the near future.
. GIs - at initial stages, but data for certain layers available . Land title database
GrowwNew: . GIS - it will continue to grow as data on more layers are added to the system. The Arizona
Geographical Council (chaired by Ben Froehlih) is the planning committee for the
system. Data for some layers will be provided and maintained by other agencies (have not
decided how to implement it yet). Also, as the system grows, so will the number of access
to the system. . Video - no real needs except for getting video images of land
5. Inter-Agency Requirements: - will require more networking with other state agencies as the GIs grows in function and
capability.
6. Operating Environment:
Installed base:
One Ethernet LAN connecting the following:
Prime 6350 running ASLD (admin system) and ALRIS (=GIs), it is also connected
to other devices through local lines and multiplexor.
1 Cornpaq 386 (for ALRIS)
1 Sun Sparcstation running UNlX (for ALRIS)
1 136-user NTS terminal service (for ASLD)
One four-port multiplexer (4x9600) connecting Prime to Tucson office, Game &
Fish, and Forestry
Overall, about 220 devices (including ASCII devices, 36 PCs) attached to Prime
with 170 users.
Comm Staff: Voice network currently maintained by DOA as voice service is
provided by them; but has not been happy with problems; feel DOA
could be more responsive. LAN managed by own personnel (1 person).
Network Management Philosophy: does not mind network(s) managed by others
(DOA)
Major New Services Deployment: GIs
Access to New Technology: would like to expand LAN and also connect to Fiber
network in the Capitol Mall using TCPIIP
1--. AgencEPynr oMfovriisdcseei otiannxp: u lat wto oLf eAgriiszloantuar efa fiorlry taaxn dla ewq uitably
2. Focus (1-5 years):
3. Role of Communications:
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Current: . personal income tax
. corporate income tax
. witholding tax system
tax collection
accounts receivables
sales tax . property tax
GrowtNNew:
Interested in the following: . Tax: electronic filing . Imaging: tax return scanning . Video: training and conferencing
E-mail: state-wide
5. Inter-Agency Requirements:
. DES: child support skip tracing . DOA: HRMS and corporation commission . DOT: controller, skip tracing . Land: property tax info inquiry
6. Operating Environment:
FAX - individual machines, not networked
Imaging - none
. Training - done via tapes
E-mail - via PC networks
Hitachi 40 MIP mainframe
3705
3274 cluster controllers
. Proteon Token Ring LANs with Banyan, 9 servers (all in Phoenix or Tempe, leased line
connected with Banyan comm server)
Unisys system running BTOS, standalone
. System37
1000 3270 emulation terminals (250 in field)
400 PCs, 260 of them LAN attached
200+ laptops
SN A
. Token Ring attachment to FEP
38/20
. two dial up lines for program maintenance
. fiber backbone within building
Netview
. RACF - security
- Would consider DoA managing their backbone - Budget: no change - Pian: open new offices (not budgeted), expand LANs, consolidate Tucson, no new apps
T OF TRANSPORTATION
1. Agency Mission: organized into 5 division:
(1) Highways - plan, design, maintain and construction project management of state highway
system. Also has test lab that sends resutts back via dial up and leased lines. Has four
district offices (P, T, F, Prescott) each with LAN (about 20 PCs). LANsare host based, but
sometimes tied together using cornm server.
(2) Motor Vehicle - 3 areas: licensing, title registration and import tax (17 ports of entry)
(3) Administrative Services - telecommunications, others
(4) Transportation Planning
(5) Aeronautics - same functions as Motor Vehicles, also run Grand Canyon Airport
- HR is a separate fundion reporting directly to DoA.
2. Focus (1 -5 years):
3. Role of Communications:
4. Major Application (Communications-Based) Portfolio:
Current:
finance . licence plate checking (via transponders)
. truck weighing
GIS
. geodesic position system
GrowthINew:
By 1992, connect all 50 states for commercial licence issuance
. smart card for drivets licence, can carry different info
5. Inter-Agency Requirements:
DoA - HRMS
DPS
Dept of Justice (later)
Land - GIs
DoR
DES
6. Operating Environment:
SNA/IMS
Bisync
. Approx. 66 million transactionsfyear (5 Mtmonth)
IBM 4300
Amdahl5990
3745
Netview
controllers
Wang WP
DEC
-will have justification and RFP to tie to other agencies. - believes that level of automation will increase
APPENDIX 3
Summary of telecornmunicatlons-based distance learning methods
The table on this and the next page gives very general information about
several of the most common distance learning methods. The infomation in
the table is not mant to be exhaustive, but gives approximate cbteristics
and costs as guidelines or@.
g
5 r.
-d 3 u
W
C a
o
0
&
2
c
>
u
4
-o c
w
0
Ei
Volco toloconferenclng
Two or more sites aonnected into
8 teleconference. Everyone hean
everyone else. Paperwork mailed
or faxed.
.
Telephones, conference bridge.
Bridge. Purchase at $1 000-
$2000/porl or rent on a per port
per minute basis when needed.
Plus line charges.
Real-time voice communications.
Equipment and operations are
relatively inexpensive, easy to
use.
No video. Mailing or faxing all
visual aids inconvenient.
Audlegrrphlcs
tekconferenclng
Two or more sites connected into
8 teleconference. Everyone heam
everyone else. Graphic
information transmitted to each
site's PC via telephone lines.
Annotations to graphics
transmitted with graphics.
Telephones, PCs, rcannen,
printers, video cameras, data
lines.
PC and peripherals (< $5000) plus
W from $3506-$500. Line
charges from $15-$3O/line/hour.
Real-time voiceMata communi-cations
Most sites already have
PCs, scanners, printers and video
cameras, so sEw may be only
extra cost. Graphic images sent
easily and quiddy.
No be video d instructor. Not dl
phone systems #upport thb
.quipme*
Orw-my utellltelcable
networks (public)
High quality video of instructor and
dou aids transmitted to
subscribers. Great variety of
mums and enrichment programs
mmilabfe. Easy for schools to use.
N monitors, satelSite/microwave/
cable hookup, telephones.
$1,000-10,000 for satellite
downlinks. S~bSCipti~fene s from
$2,000-10,000; may include
peripherals and maintenance.
Special programs may cost extra.
Cable installation from $1 8,000-
$25,Q00/mile; dl 0,000 for
receiving site equipment. Cable
maintenance 4 5 % d system
cost.
High quality video of instructor and
dosr aids. Great variety of
mums and enrichment
programs. Easy for schools to
use. Satellites not restricted by
~ ~ r ~ h ~ .
May be unable to interact with
instructor during class; if students
an Memct, Us by phone, usually
WATS lh. Subject to arnicula
ud r d r d ~ bosf ~DUM
providers. 2-way video is not an
option; teachars cannot see
dudonts; students cannot see
othar dudents. m enu mber of
rtudents per dam. No bcal
wntrol .
5 s
3
CI
W
- -
a
5
o
ca a .I >
u a
r,
m
r)
)L c
wa
u
.I
-r, 0
~ o w a vneet works (prtvate)
Plivaely ownd microwave
networks. Courses and pqrams
dewbped for speclfii students.
Microwave transmitheceke
system. monitors, phones.
-
Transmit site cost of $60,000 plus
tower (up to $50,000); receive
sites 410,000 plus tower ($3000-
$50,000). Leaselpurchase
agreements may be an option.
Insurance, maintenance, repairs
between 36% of system
costfyear. Costs can be reduced
by limiting number of transmit
sites.
High quality video of instrudor and
class aids. Curricula controlled
kxaly. Generally bw teacher1
student ratio.
Geographic limitations. May need
extra personnel to manage
system. Expansion b expensive.
c=fQ@--
(compnmad) vrcko
Two or more sites connected into
a video-telecanference. The
teacher can mo and hear
students; students can me and
hear the teacher urd other
students. S o d camera
transmits image of visual aid.
Vieo wdecs for transmission/
reception, monitors for
dassrooms, high sped telephone
lines.
$60,00OIsite plus line a~sts.
Leaselpurchase agreements may
be an option. Costs are expected
to drop rapidly as technology
improves.
Line costs start at about
$30Aine/hour; usually 2 lines
required.
Real-time voice and graphic
communications. Teachen and
students see and hear each other.
High quality voice communi-cations.
Quite easy to use. Local
control.
Vieo ia not fun motion; may not
be appropriate for courses
requiring action or hiih bvels of
observation.
klknotkrr vld# wing
digltrl flbr
Two or more s#m wnnected into
8 two-way, ful-tnotion, video
conferem. Tho b8cher can see
d hoar stdonts; students can
m urd hoar tho teacher and
other students. S.cond camera
transmits image of visual aid.
V icod e= for transmissionl
toooption, monitors for
durrooms, fiber plant.
$10,000-$50,000 for classroom
codersldders, plus monitor and
microphone costs.
Loaselpurchase agreements may
be an option. Costs are expected
to drop in the future.
Fiber installation plus usage. Line
arts about $30.70/milelmonth.
High quality video d instructor and
dsrs aids. Toacher and students
w and hoaieach other; students
hear and see other students. Easy
interaction. Can transmit
voiceldatalgraphii. Local wntrol.
Cost for notwork facilities may be
prohibitive. Fiber may not be
available; if available, may be
expensive. Depending on
conf~uratione, xpansion may be
quite expensive.
APPENDIX 4
FEATURE GROUP SERVICE ATTRIBUTES L COSTS
Appendix 4 pv#e an implementation example of "atpotate carrier services, which can be a
Ileastcost" way to wpport a number of on-nettoff-net access requirements and enables hybrid
network inter-working between the utilinetwork and the LEC-network.
Beaming a "corporate carrier requires that the state CPE-based switch be able to implement
public-network signaling protocol on a specific trunk group connecting their SLlOO to the public
network. These t~nkSar e called "feature group" trunks. Wah "oorporate carrier status the state
could cany " d i i l f l traffic between the public network and utility network at the minimum usage-sensitive
tariff. These are called Yeature group" tariffs; and rather minimum cost way to implement
access to the utility network from the public network.
[The SL 100 can implement peer-peer signalng protocol to both dass 4 and class 5 offices; that is,
il can kdc to the public network as either a L EC Central mc8 (CO) or Aacess Tandem (Aq or as
an 1EC hint of Presence (IEC-POP)].
A number of services requiring access to utility network services over the public network could be
supported via "corporate carrier services"; and by doing so these sites become, in the functional
sense, "on-network" kcations. For example, something as simple as less expensive voice
sewices to wpport the two-way audio portion of a "distance learning" teaching applications will
extend the number of hours that the school district could provide those service to the remote
classroom. And dial-able "nanowband" (DSO), or bw-speed data service, between community
school district offices and the universities, or to other school districts, over public network
facilities, could be offered within the concept of a "mrporate carrier service implementation.
Access would be charged under the feature group rate structure, with access denial when service
usage exceeds a specified spending cap. The figures in Appendix 4 depicl some of concepts of
a "corporate carrier implementation, and provides a summary of the arnent rate structure.
I Local Loop
andem 9 I Feature Group
Trunks
Inter-Office
Trunks
Phoenix LATA
Tucson LATA
Feature Group
Trunks
Local LOOP I
0 Public Network
962 Corporrte Carrlor Identlflcrtlon Codo
ARIZONA
Switch
P-h-oe n-- ix -LAT-- A Tucson LATA
Language Courae
from
10362-2-2255
University of Arizona
Voice Bridge: 602-621-2211 Larry Beauchat
From Roadside Phone
FG #D
Usage Sensitive Rates
Local Transport (Rounded Up):
$ .015 /minute 0 - 25 miles
$ .023 /minute 25 - 50 miles
$ .033 /minute 50 - 100 miles
$ .050 /minute 100+ miles
Local Switching:
$ ,0098 /minute
Common Line:
$ .00885 /minute
Misc. Charges
$ .0011 /call 800 Service Access charge
$ .0080 /call Network Blocking Charge
Arizona Intra-State Tariff
APPENDIX S
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Thk sedion presents some thoughts and obsewatbn and a conceptual level view of
technologies that support the utility network function; it also discusses several implementation
Issue the state should be sensitive to. Quantitative information, addressing the specific nature
md cost d any implementation droice can be provided at a future time when decision on the
utility network have been made. The intent of this section is to raise some issues and define
tome of the technology choices that sewe to implement the recommendation given in the
previous chapter of this report.
We avoid addressing the voice network choices to make more dear the area of most immediate
concern to the state: supporting the data requirement.
The key to an implementation plan is that It put the state in a position to take advantage of evolving
service and technobgy options; and not lock the late into technobgies or bng tern service
arrangements that limit choice or functionality.
To a ~0rtainex tent this can be mitigated by the natural evolution, and market tracking, that
successful service and technology providers all exhibit. Product technobgies evolve to support
the sewices required. We believe that in the future, voice, video, data and other types of traffic
will be supported by one switching technology. Traditional CPE-vendors will evolve their
products to encompass newer switching technologies, standards and protocol like cell switching,
ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) and SONn (Synchronous Optical Network). Traditional CO-vendors
will migrating their products to support LANs, and protocols like FDDI. Both vendors will
attempt to address their market, which they now see as the same market, and support voice, video
and other high speed protocols. These technologies are evolving towards each other and it is
likely that in the near future the distinction between say a multiplexer and a packet switch will be
quite blurred.
Another service trend is that telephone companies are moving aggressively into the data area.
Evidence of that trend are the pending service offerings for Frame Relay packet service to
support narrowband (TI) now and wideband (T3) in the future; and Switched Megabit Data
Service (SMDS) which is a wideband offering. Therefore, high-speed, and wideband public
network-based data services will become part of, and an alternative to, CPE-based private network
data services.
CRlT €RIA FOR UTILITY NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION
Based on our understanding of the current and future data communications requirements we
have devebped criteria for evaluating the technologies that support the utility network concept.
Those cr#eria are:
I must meet, or be able to evolve to meet, all or most of the data c o w i t i o n s
requirements of the State agencies and institutions. One of the expressed
requirements is to be able to interconnect and have access to host mnputers
across agencies.
The Implementation should take advantage of existing equipment andlor
network(s) already in place today to minimize costs. For exam, the fiber ring on
the capitol mall and the ITN.
l'he implementation should be based on International andlor Industry de facto
rtandards as much as feasible. Ms will facilitate the connection of the utilii
fbet~~wrIkth other nt3tworks (public and private) to provide access to endpoints
outside of it. Also, Y will albw dierent vendors' equipment to work together in
the same network when needed.
It must be flexble: in other words, the network can be expanded easily in the
future and be able to support new applications when required. Also, the
implementation can be done in phases without intempting sewice to the end
users.
The strategy should be of bw risk: it should use proven technology and more
importantly, the network can evolve to encompass new technology without
obsoleting most of existing equipment
The network must have high reliability and availability
The network should be managed centrally so that network management
expertise can be centralized and not dispersed, thereby reducing the cost of
managing the network
The network should be secure
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
We evaluated several technologies to find a "best fit' for the needs of the State. Our conclusion
is that the utility network should encompass, and inter-work with a mix of different technologies. In
this section we describe and evaluate several of the ahemative technologies that were candidates
to serve the utility networks data needs.
In the past few years, IANs have been ptoliferating in the private data communications
environment. It is estimated that within a few years, 70% of all PCs will be mnnected via LANs.
-R LoIuNte. rSso wmeere p ienovpelnet ekdrI tMo LinAteNrc/WonAnNe/cLtA PNC n LeAtwNosr kasn uds tihnegr erobuyt ethrse ocnolny,c wephti loef oItAheNrs i nutseern ae tworking
ambination of rwters and multiplexers. Some also kok at it as one of the components in a
hybrid network How they are used and viewed depend on the size and type of the network.
At this stage of the technobgy, routers are boxes that facilitate the interconnection of LANs.
-
Therefore, it is efficient and works quite well for relatively small, homogeneous (consisting only of
PC LANs) UNs. It is also rehtiely inexpensive. However, as the primary component of a data
network, it has the fobwing shortfalls:
& cannot wpport hqp networks because It has limited networking and routing
capabilities
supports only a ilmited number of types of devices (that is, protocols).
hplementatbns are mostly proprietary; also, support of standards is minimal.
lMted capabilities in network management and control
In the Mure, we believe that router vendors will evolve their products to overcome the above
shortfalls. Not only that, they will probably expand the scope of routers to become intelligent
network nodal processors. But for the next two to three years, the above shortcomings will
prevent routers from being the main component of a heterogeneous WAN even though they
serve as a very useful building bkdc in such a network.
Frame relay is a connectionoriented protowl designed to support the transmission of LAN and
other data traffic at speeds up to TI (1 .SMbps) now, and with an evolution path to support to T3
(45Mbps) within the next three years. It is a technology that can be deployed on existing public-network
facilities, in that it can be implemented on a Wire-based' distribution scheme. A
consortium of vendors, currently about 40 companies, have announce product directions that
embrace frame relay standards and implementations. Most major TlK3 muttiplexer vendors are
part of this ansortium. Frame relay has evoked from traditional X.25 packet protocol but it is more
efficient than X.25. It is currently marketed as a replacement for dediited private line (its called
virtual private line) and is used primarily as the public-network based protocol for interconnecting
LANs or other high-speed data applications - supporting services over leased, or usage-sensitive
11 arrangements.
Frame relay encompasses the first two layers of the IS0 OSI model, and as such, Y is an interface
protocol to be used for DTE-DCE interfacing. Fundionalities on top of frame relay must be
incorporated before it can be used for networking. Such is done by router and multiplexer
vendors in a limited fashion. Because of the limitation of routers, frame relay plays an important
role in a network. Note that unlike SMDS (see bebw), upgrading to frame relay is usually done via
software, therefore the evolution (of a network) to frame relay is relatively simple.
For interconnecting LANs that do not have the need to communicate with entities outside of the
LAM, a routerflrame relay combination can be used to interconnect them via either a public frame
relay sewice or over frame relay interfaces on the utility network. The choice of public versus
private implementation will depend on traffic characteristii, tatiff, and network management
philosophy.
SMDS is a connectionless, cell-based protocol defined for speeds of Ti and above. As a servib,
It ls being positioned as a regional or metropolitan-area offering and as such , It has limited reach
geographically. Unlike frame relay (which can be implemented via a simple upgrade to existing
equipment), inplementing SMDS requires adding both new software and hardware. Also, very
few vendors, compared to frame relay, have announced the support of this protocol to date. It
may play a role when users migrate to broadband ISDN to support voice, video and other data
Wi within a single switching fabric. However, we do not see that happening within the next few
years.
Therefore, we believe that implementing SMDS in the near future will not only be an overWI1, but
.Is0 expensive ond risky.
Fast packet is a m p tra ther than a paRiatlar technology. Based on that concept are two
technologies: frame relay (DSO to DS3 aocess) and ceU switching (DS3 and above). Under frame
relay are services and products em~byingth e frame nlay protml. Under cell switching one finds
end user capabilities such as broadband ISDN (ATM) and MAN (802.6, SMDS).
There are fast packet implementation that are proprietary and in those cases, the term "fast
packet' is being used loosely and does not have any signifiint meaning. Because i! creates
market hype, more and more traditional T i m multiplexer vendors are claiming that their products
uses Vast packet'. Fast packet or not, the multiplexers today and In the near future are bandwidth
managers. Some may Incorporate routing andtor LAN support in their boxes to expand their
scope, but In the near future, multiplexers will remain the product that aims to manage backbone
bandwidth while albwing other functionality to be built on top of it.
OPERATIONAL CONCERNS
This section describes some of the operational concerns that must be address in this
implementation plan. Some of them are technical in nature, while others political. The issues are
as folbws:
(1) Buy-in of Implementation Plan by All - since this will be a state-wide inter-agency
network, an agreement among all parties involved will be needed
before proceeding with the project. Sometimes getting the agreement
can be difficult because different organizations may have different
networking goals and objectives. Nevertheless, this is a very essential
step.
(2) Clear Goals & Objectives for the Network - goals and objectives for the
overall utility network must be set and prioritized before proceeding with
the design and implementation of the network. This is because different
objectives result in tiierent design and implementation, and as a result,
dierent costs.
A case in point is redundancy versus cost: when designing a network,
there is always the trade off between providing redundancy and
minimizing costs. Sometimes increasing n l i i l i y and redundancy will
result in an increase in costs. For example, there are currently four TI
trunks between Phoenix and Tucson. A failure of one of them will mostly
kely not brtemrpt service. As traffic grow in the Mure, It will be more
oconornical-to replace the Ti links with one fractional or even full T3 link.
For redundancylrelibili reasons, there should be a muting scheme #at
supports distributing portions of that traflic along different paths; a way of
routing rseveral "trunk groups' of Ti equivalents along a different route.
Such a configuration, and sewice options will depend on the choice or
canjer, and their flexibility in pricing and servicing their clients needs;
alternative senrice options w l not necessarily result in higher costs.
(3) Integrated Network Management - with a hybrid network like the utility
network, Y will be essential to be able to managetadminister the whole
network from one platform rather than using multii platforms (separate
ones for each vendor's equipment in the network). Therefore, when
evaluating a WAN equipmentvendor, determine the level of flexibility
ud interoperability of &s network management system. For exanple,
does It support OSI network management capabilities (CMIP/CMIS), does
ll Meroperate with SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) and
Netview, and does & have any sinple means to allow proprietary network
management subsystems of other networking devices (e.g., routers,
multiplexers, gateways) to Intemperate with it. We believe that for
complex and mission crifil networks such as the utility network, It is very
inportant to be able to manage a network pro-actively rather than
reactively. And having an integrated network management system is
certainty a step in the rlgM direction.
(4) Responsibility for Managing the Network - it k ako critical to determine at
the outset w h i i organization(s) will manage the network. Not only does
Y play a role in determine the network configuration, it also defines the
Infrastructure necessary to manage the network. One approach is to
manage the network centrally and entirely by the Department of
Administration. This approach is more efficient If the network is not very
big: one can centralizelconsolidate technical expertise in one location to
manage the network, dispatching people to local sires only when
necessary. However, this means that all agencies will give up at bast
partial control of their own network and rely on the DoA to manage it
instead.
Another approach is to have the DoA act as the overall network manager,
but at the same time, divide the network into virtual private networks
(VPN) according to ownership, with each VPN managed by the
respective owning agency or department. This approach works well if the
network is relatively large because some regionalization of network
management expertise would be required anyway regardless of whether
VPNs exist or not. An advantage of this approach is that each agency
retains control, to a large extent, of b network.
For a network the size of the utility network, we recommend that the
centralized approach be used initially because it is more efficient
(requires fewer people) and therefore cheaper to do. At a later date as
the network grows bigger, the VPN approach can be considered.
(5) Product Evolution - as mentioned above, technology is changing at a
very rapid pace. And to some extent, it is driven by new applications.
Equipment that satisfies todays needs may be inadequate to meet the
requirements a few years in the future. Therefore, one of the criteria
used to select equipmentlvendor is that the vendor should have an
evolution plan for the product to encompass the required switching
technokgies for the future, and that evoMin must not obsolete
products bough! today.
More than one technobgy wlll be required to support the u t i l i network but both traditional packet
Witching and Frame Relay packet switching offer several advantages that address the expressed
operatb~clr iteria lor the network; both of these technologies:
oor\sdidates banchrvidth usage, resulting in savings In facilities costs
album users to access multiple endpoints via virtual circuits (and thus eliminate
most needs for multiple point-to-point physical lines), further saving facilities costs
and enhancing flexibility in user connectivity (e.g., elkwing users to have inter-
Wncy -ss)
are standards-based and support access to netwoks implementing other
standards; and as such il facilities internetworking and fosters hybrid solutions
(public-toprivate, private-private)
support most equipment already in place
are flexible and easily expandable; can also support network applications such as
X.400 (Message Handling System) and X.500 (Directory Services) with bwer
costs
are bw risk because it is proven technology; also, the trunking protocol between
nodes are usually very efficient (of course, that is vendor dependent)
have high reliability and availability (depending on vendor)
have excellent centralized network management capabilities
In add'iion to the Frame relaylpacket switched WAN, other types of networking device will be
needed because of the diverse types of data communications devices that need to be supported
tn this network Such devices include multiplexers, routers, LAN gateways and PADS (packet
assembler disassemblers). Taken all together, they provide LAWAN, LIN, WANMlAN and the
equivalent of MAN switching (at lower speeds) in the utility netwolk.
The basic WAN configuration might consist of interconnected Frame Relaylpacket switches at
major regional expertise hubs such as Phoenix and Tucson, and possibly other bcations. The
packet technobgy are placed in those kcations for two reasons: (1) they are the centers with the
most number of connecting devices and therefore, where most traffic are generated and
terminated, and, (2) probably it will result in the minimfm of facilities costs. However, it is possiMe
that additional packet transport devices may be needed in other bcations to meet cost,
performance and redundancy requirements.
Inter-swltch trunking for those regional expertise hubs will be taken from bandwidth in the existing
ITN. This can be done via assigning the required bandwidth through the T1 mltiilexers existing
h those locations. Depending on the resuttant traffic, additional TI circuits may be needed
between those locations.
Remote locations, such as county Seats, can be connected to the appropriate regional expertise
hubs (via DSOrrl lines) using appropriate PADS or other devices, depending on the protocols
that need to be supported in those locations.
Even though the WAN does not support MAN standards such as SMDS directly, together with
other networking devices described bebw, Y provkies the equivalent of MAN capabilities atbeit at
bwer speeds on the utility network.
The fber ring on the capbl mall is another part of the hybrid utility network 11 should be used as
the vehicle to mach those LANS, terminals (via terminal servers), and other communication
devices that are within reach of the ring. When configured properly, this will allow the devices to
communicate with each other, thereby allowing inter-agency communication to ocwr over the
ring. The fiber ring should be connected to the WAN by LAN gateways using the X.25 protocol.
This will provide connectivity between the fiber ring and the rest of the utility network. When set
up properly, devices attached directly or Indirectly to the fiber ring will be able to access other
endpoints on the network outside of the ring.
Some packet switches support native LAN architectures directly. For those products, LANs can
be attached directly to them. If the packet switch selected does not support LANs directly, there
are other means to connect them to the utility network as descriied bebw.
For UWs that have only LIN (LAN interconnecting network) requirements, i.e., they only need to
interconnect with just LANs, there are a few ways to satisfy that requirement. The first way is to
use a public frame relay senrice to interconnect them. The cost effectiveness of this approach
depends on the amount of traffic and the tariff of the service.
The second approach is to interconnect them using routers terminating on the packet switches
using the frame relay protocol. Various packet switch vendors have announced the support of
frame reby on their products.
The third approach is to use LAN gateways with X.25 as the interface protocol to connect to the
WAN. This not only allows the LANs to communicate with each other, they can also do so with
endpoints outside of the LANs. Therefore this is the recommended approach. Note that this
should also be the approach to interconnect LANs that have requirements to communicate
outside of the M s .
Dial-up ports can be provided on the PADS and at the regional expertise hubs to allow non-dedicated
access to the u t i l i network. Users such as the K12 schools, outside business, .
agencies from other state governments can gain access to the u t i l i network via these dial-up
ports. Different levels of access can be assigned to different users to alkw them access to
diierent applications on the network.
If needed, the utility network can be cmmcted to a publii padcel network via X.25. It can also be
connected to other prfvate ~ehnorksv ia the same protocol. With #rch Internetworking
capabilities, access into and out of the utUi network can be provided thereby extending the
nach of the network tremendously.
NEW NETWORK APPLICATIONS
Wlth a utility network In place, new applications can be implemented on the network ard made - readily available to users. Through our inlerviews, we found that there is a desire and also the
need to have some form of electronic mail system across agencies. If used property, an e-mail
system should reduce the amount of paper used while aliowing the business to run more
efficiently. Currently, e-mail systems are used by some agencies (usually on LANs); however,
they are all standalone systems.
We recommend that the State implement a standards-based e-mail system on the utility network;
such a system will conform to the CCfrr X.400 standard for e-mail. By conforming to standards,
one can exchange e-mail with other networks (e.g., corporations, Federal Government) thereby
providing new ways to communicate with others. Another advantage of using X.400 is that it
provides the basis to support other network applications such as X.500 (diredory services) and
ED1 (Electronic Data Interchange). ED1 allows the interchange of not just messages, but also
documents and files.
When acquiring an e-mail system, one should find out how many different types of mail gateways
the system supports. The function of the gateway is to provide conversion and routing of e-mail
between X.400 and %reign' e-mail systems (e.g. PROFS on IBM mainframes) within the same
network. The more types of gateways supported, the more flexible the system: this means that
more people can retain their existing e-mail systems and yet able to communicate with the people
outside of their systems.
Another desirable characteristic to bok for when acquiring an e-maii system is reliabiliity, which is
quite important il it is to be the primary vehicle through which people exchange messages. Some
vendors have implemented their e-mail systems on fault tolerant computers, and that is certainly
something worth considering.
There is a certain amount of State business-related travel between Phoenix and Tucson, and
most of the people interviewed felt that some of the travel can be replaced by video conferencing.
However, they were concerned that the quality of the video may be bw and that the cost too high.
In realty, video conferencing technology (compression techniques and codingldecoding) has
advanced significantly in the hst couple of years while cost has gone down drastiilly. Today's '
video conferencing equipment can use a fraction of a Ti circuit (NxWK, but typically 2x64K) to
provide decent picture quality, and images of presentatbn ovetlwad can be transmitted statically
8nd shown on a separate monitor. The combination of relatively bw equipmerl prices (as bw as
$30,000 per unit) and transwin costs leads to a fairly quick return on hestrnent for video
oonferencing systems. Some users are reporting payback periods of two years or less.
We mcomrnend that video oonferencing capabilii be implemented h both Phoenix and Tucson
hYhlty. The bandwidth for such can be taken from the existing IlN Ti circuits between those two
bcatiins vla the TI multiplexers, and It need only be allocated upon demand.
Again, rtandards play an important role h the putchasing of video oonferencing equipment.
Currently ~endt>krn~p rernent their own codingldecoding and mmpressbn algorithms In their
products because no standards existed and video conferencing technology was advancing at a
very rapid pace. &i a resutl, equipment from ditferent vendors do not work together. Recently,
there have been a bt of standards activities in this area, and as a result, a usable stanbard for video
oonferencing (CCllT H261, otherwise known as Px64) may be forth comlng. The standard at this
point only addresses the video portion, kR not the voice nor multiiint conferencing nor
encryption. Work in being done to resolve those issues. Therefore, when purchasing video
obnferencing equipmen!, ask the vendors what their plans are for incorporating standards in their
products and how current ~uipmencta n be upgraded to support those standards as they
become available.