Video Conferencing Stakeholder Forum June 12, 2009

Agenda ITEMPRESENTERTIME Why are we here? Welcome and Introductions How we got to this Spot. Overview of the Task at Hand: Phase 1 Brief Overview of Phase 2: July 1, 2009 Forward Debbie Fery/ Bret West 15 min Audio Conferencing and Web Based Meeting The Plan and Stakeholder MeetingDebbie Fery5 min Hosting Video Conferencing In-source Proposed Infrastructure Out Source Proposed Vendors and Costs Debbie Fery20 min Volume Requirements Customer Use Volumes Customer Needs - Survey Debbie Fery Rate Design and Partners In-Source Rate Design – Best Approach Discussion Next Meeting: Communication Plans Q and A All - Everyone

Welcome and Introductions Video Project and Support Team: Shawn Wagoner Lawrence Eng Doug Inman Kevin Hudson Glenn Robertson Linda Anderson Who is here…… DHS Justice Judicial Education Corrections DAS-HRSD ODOT Board of Nursing Forestry So. Oregon ESD Lane ESD Willamette ESD Marion County Economic Development Chemeketa CC State Police Revenue

Bret West – Operations Administrator and DAS CIO Opening Remarks DAS Commitment to Customers Road Ahead

How we got into this spot …..and what we are doing about it.  IRMD Re-Organization and staffing of the SDC  Immediacy of need – No time to look back, Customers are calling, customers of DAS were demanding services  TSC redirected staff from LAN/Desktop Services to support this service – Help Desk and Infrastructure Support – 3 staff, administration and billing staff  Revenues support the existing costs and emergency limitation was given to pay for these increased cost, as TSC did not have limitation budgeted going into 07_09.  The Video rate model was not fair, network rates increased and then decreased and customer were not budgeted to handle increases, but it was too late...as several smaller customers dropped service  It was not anticipated that TSC would remain in this business without limitation to support it correctly….but here we are.

…..We dug our heels in, got training, took each issue as it arose, talked to vendors, figured our infrastructure pros and cons, figured out who are customers are…. Customers came and they kept coming and kept coming….. How we got into this spot …..and what we are doing about it.

Overview of the Task at Hand: Phase 1 The age of the current Video Conferencing infrastructure (in-sourced) is:  at end of life  out of capacity Customers are demanding more services:  video and audio based real-time streaming  on-demand recording for posting to web sites and on-demand streaming of pre-recorded conferences Bottom line: DAS has an outdated infrastructure and not enough FTE to support the expectations of an ever growing customer base. Given the economic conditions of the State of Oregon can outsourcers meet the State of Oregon business requirements and do it cheaper than we can do it ourselves?

Shall DAS or another governmental entity purchase and support self- hosting of the video conferencing service OR shall the state outsource this service? Which option is more cost effective and in the best interest of the State of Oregon? Overview of the Task at Hand: Phase 1

Brief Overview of Phase 2: If outsourcing is chosen: DAS will assist customers in transitioning to an outsourced vendor by working with the outsourcer, SDC networking and security, and any other support needs. As there is currently no contracted vendor to provide multi-point video bridging. A competitive procurement will need to happen (Phase 1 outcome) If in-sourcing is chosen: a procurement will be done to purchased or lease the needed infrastructure and hire staffing to support the volume and business needs of customers. A rate will be developed that is fair and agreed upon and is cost recovery. Transition planning will occur to move customers from current bridging infrastructure to the new bridging infrastructure

July 1, 2009 Forward – Video and Audio Conferencing  TSC will continue to support customers in a self- hosting manner with its current infrastructure for 90 days at this point.  TSC will continue the present rate model and billing method  When a decision is made on Phase 1, we can send info via or have another forum …..Vote…..on Phase 2 Planning

UPATE on Audio Conferencing and Web Based Meetings

What is Happening: Audio Conferencing and Web Based Meetings (with IP Desktop Video)  Stakeholder forum will be held soon. See Linda Anderson for sign up for this forum  Decision based on usage and rate – dictates outsourcing – Why…….  DAS is providing four mechanisms with four differing rate models for audio conferencing – one is a contract with ATT and the others are self-hosted within DAS for customers.  Agencies are individually purchasing Web Based Meeting services via contracts (GoTo Meeting, WebEx, LiveMeeting) - this has redundant process and lack of economies of scale for pricing. Nobody is getting any price breaks  The use of basic Audio Conferencing as an alternative to in- person meetings is underutilized in the State of Oregon. There is potential for huge growth, web based meeting is a natural off- shoot given it basic use of audio conferencing.

 Pricing for the outsourced model would require the purchase of “buckets of minutes” and a “Bucket of Accounts”. DAS could be the administrator of the bucket for all customers to achieve economies of scale. DAS or the vendor would chargeback customers for their usage DAS would administer a contract with an outsourced vendor for the State of Oregon  All researched outsourcers are willing to lower their rates based on collective volume  The State of Oregon has a competitive advantage based on its volume. The State does not have a competitive advantage in hiring FTE and the ability to add capacity on the fly. What is Happening: Audio Conferencing and Web Based Meetings (with IP Desktop Video)

Current and Estimated Volumes H.323 and H.320

Current Capacity In-source  60 ports of Standard Definition in Continuous presence (to see all parties, for content and with audio add-ins) OR  160 ports of voice activated switching  6- concurrent ISDN connections using 6 phone lines at 384K, 36 Phone line  No High Definition Ports  No Desktop solution  Limited to 1 recording at a time  Limited to 1 real-time streaming  On-demand streaming (previously recorded) almost unlimited in concurrent connections (RealPlayer)  Separate Management and Reservation Tools  Limited Usage reporting for customers  3000 Registered Endpoints in the Gatekeeper with 500 Concurrent connections

Replacement Capacity – In-source  80 OR 120 (converts HD ports) ports of Standard Definition in Continuous presence (to see all parties, for content and with audio add-ins)  20 High Definition Ports  6- conncurrent ISDN connections using 6 phone lines each at 384K – 36 phone lines  25 Concurrent Licenses – Unlimited Installs on Desktops  10 recordings concurrently  20 real-time streaming concurrently  On-demand streaming (previously recorded) almost unlimited in concurrent connections (Windows Media Server – 1000 per server)  2500 Registered Endpoints in the Gatekeeper with 500 Concurrent connections  Integrated Reservation, Bridge Management and Volume reports in a self-service model

Replacement- Capacity Cost

 Current Volumes includes zero desktop volume. Go back to volumes slide  Cost model makes streaming and recording the same as bridging, meaning every port of bridging includes recording and streaming at the same cost per minute  Uses Windows Media Server and hosting at SDC – decommissions RealPlayer environment  Dollars not based on a competitive procurement  Year 3 Expansion includes 20 additional SD ports and an additional 25 licenses of desktop video for ~150K but is not included in this cost model yet  These are purchase numbers, leasing is available Cost Model Assumptions:

Example Conferencing Designs h.323 Camera Recording and Streaming Point to Point Conference Media Server- Streaming and holding on-demand Recordings

ISDN or IP Site of other parties to conference with h.323 Camera Recording and Streaming Media Server- Streaming and holding on-demand Recordings Example Conferencing Designs

Outsourced Proposed Vendors and Costs ATT Contract See page 30 of the handout Prices are not based on any volume bucks “marks”

Outsourced Proposed Vendors and Costs Intercall See Intercall handout Prices are not based on any volume bucks “marks”

Rate Model Discussion  What is the appropriate rate model for Video Conferencing?  By the Minute for each party on the conference billed to the host of the conference?  By the port – like a cell phone plan, each customer would purchase a certain number of ports and if they went over, extra charges would be incurred?  By physical site, meaning location of the camera?  How should we handle partners of customers who wish to participate in a conference but do not pay for their access to the Bridge?  Should recording and streaming be built into the rate or be an optional add on to the base bridging rate?  Should audio line add ins be and additional charge or should a certain number of line be built into the basic bridging rate?

Video Conferencing Stakeholder Forum Linda Anderson EISPD -Project Manager 955 Center St NE - Rm 470 Salem, OR Debbie Fery TSC Manager 955 Center St NE - U510 Salem, OR