June, 1997

Submitted By:
the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council
and the Office of the Governor, Telecommunications Policy

Submitted To:
Governor John A. Kitzhaber, MD

Project Management:
Sue Diciple Wedding
Management Resources
2223 NE 47^th Ave
Portland OR 97213-1911
(503) 287-9345

Acknowledgments

This publication was made possible in part by a grant from the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, US Department of Commerce.

The producers of this publication wish to acknowledge and thank the following people for their participation in this process:

Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council (OTFC)

Governor John Kitzhaber, chair; Jim Crowder, OPTEC, Inc.; Robert Dernedde, Oregon Medical Association; Mark Dodson, Ater, Wynne, Hewitt, Dodson & Skerritt; Ben Doty, Central Lincoln PUD; David Gilbert, Eastern Oregon University; Neil Grubb, AT&T Wireless Services; Joan Harding, Jewell School; Jack Lawrence, Chambers Communications Corp.; Chuck Lenard, US West Communications; Paula Manley, Tualatin Valley Community Access

Support Staff

Guy Alvis, Oregon Telcom; Sue Diciple Wedding, Management Resources; Eva Doud, Office of the Governor; Laurie Itkin, Office of the Governor; Carl Kucharski, Management Resources; Jeff Ritter, Oregon Economic Development Department

Planning Committee

Jim Crowder, co-chair, OPTEC, Inc.; Paula Manley, co-chair, Tualatin Valley Community Access; Mark Dodson, Ater, Wynne, Hewitt, Dodson & Skerritt; Joan Harding, Jewell School; Jack Lawrence, Chambers Communications Corp. Staff -- Eva Doud, Office of the Governor; Laurie Itkin, Office of the Governor; Jeff Ritter, Oregon Economic Development Department

Assessment Team

David Gilbert, chair, OTFC, Eastern Oregon University; Robert Dernedde, OTFC, Oregon Medical Association; Jack Lawrence, OTFC, Chambers Communications Corp.; Guy Alvis, Oregon Telcom; Bruce Branlund, Motorola Communications; Dale Clark, Electric Lightwave; Terry Edvalson, Eastern Oregon University; Alfred Hughes, Hughes Communications Options; Rick Hulett, Sprint-United Telephone; Fordie McAlpin, Hewlett-Packard Company; John Metcalf, Associated Oregon Industries; Mike Severns, St. Charles Medical Center; Dennis Stillwaggon, InDepot

Benchmarking Team

Neil Grubb, chair, OTFC, AT&T Wireless Services

Community Development Goal Team

Alan Bushong, chair, Capital Community Television; Celia Heron, City of Portland; Paula Manley, OTFC, Tualatin Valley Community Access; Mark Nasstrom, Oregon Coast Rural Information Services Co-op; Barbara Peschiera, Columbia Foundation; Donna Reed, Multnomah County Library; Brian Scott, Livable Oregon; Ethan Seltzer, Portland State University; Link Shadley, Clatsop Community College; Ken Wilhelm, United Way-Bend

Community Development Goal Team - Civic Networking Subcommittee

Alan Bushong, chair, Capital Community Television; Celia Heron, City of Portland; Paula Manley, OTFC, Tualatin Valley Community Access; Mark Nasstrom, Oregon Coast Rural Information Services Co-op; Barbara Peschiera, Columbia Foundation; Donna Reed, Multnomah County Library; Brian Scott, Livable Oregon; Ethan Seltzer, Portland State University; Link Shadley, Clatsop Community College, Ken Wilhelm, United Way-Bend

Community Development Goal Team - Rights of Way Subcommittee

Bruce Crest, chair, Metropolitan Area Communications Commission; Tim Ramis, Attorney; Sarah Hackett, League of Oregon Cities

Community Development Goal Team - Telecommuting Subcommittee

Kathy Morgan King, chair, Oregon Office of Energy; Mark Hetz, Asante Health System; David Hoover, Landmark Concepts; Jeff Ritter, Oregon Economic Development Department; Kelly Schwartz, Multnomah Education Service District; Trey Senn, Klamath County Economic Development Association; John Svadlenak, Oregon Department of Transportation; Greg Wolf, Office of the Governor; Louise Watts, Lucent Technologies, Inc.; Tom Wykes, Oregon State University Co-op Extension Service

Health Care Goal Team

Cathy Britain, co-chair, RODEO NET; Jeff Butler, co-chair, Area Health Education Center-OHSU; Bruce Byram, Philomath Family Medicine; Robert Dernedde, OTFC, Oregon Medical Association; John Edwards, MD, Veterans' Affairs-Roseburg; Dan Garigan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield; Rupert Goetz, Oregon Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division; Bill Grigsby, Telemedicine Research Center; Dan Harris, Oregon Health Plan Administrator's Office; Dave Jones, PAC, Condon Clinic; Avi Lev, Attorney; David Still, CHD, Inc.; Karen Whitaker, Office of Rural Health-OHSU; Ryan Wiest, St. Charles Medical Center; William Yasnoff, MD, PhD, Oregon Health Division

Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team

Jim Crowder, co-chair, OTFC, OPTEC, Inc.; Ben Doty, co-chair, OTFC, Central Lincoln PUD; Ben Berry, Multnomah County; Ralph Cox, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; John Cuddy, Oregon Department of Human Resources; Sarah Hackett, League of Oregon Cities; Wes Hare, City of La Grande; Jean Hill, Oregon Department of Corrections; Pat Middelburg, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Curt Pederson, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; David Rike, Oregon Department of Education; David Stubbs, Oregon State System of Higher Education; John Tawney, Oregon State Police; David White, Oregon Department of Transportation

Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team - Access Subteam

John Tawney, chair, Oregon State Police; Bill Carpenter, Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services; Mike Freese, Oregon State Printer; Linda Gilbert, Oregon Legislative Information System; Bob Green, Oregon Department of Human Resources; Mike Greenfield, Secretary of State; Doug Hunter, Douglas County; John Greydanus, Oregon State System of Higher Education; Randy Kolb, City of Eugene; David Rike, Oregon Department of Education

Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team - Local/State Integration Subteam

Ben Berry, chair, Multnomah County; Sarah Hackett, League of Oregon Cities; Larry Harker, Association of Oregon Counties; Jean Hill, Oregon Department of Corrections; Julie Pearson, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Curt Pederson, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Eric Shpilman, Lake County Commission on Children and Families

Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team - Operational Consolidation Subteam

David White, chair, Oregon Department of Transportation; Ralph Cox, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; John Cuddy, Oregon Department of Human Resources; David Dowrie, Oregon Department of Transportation; Sarah Hackett, League of Oregon Cities; Jean Hill, Oregon Department of Corrections; Mike Johnson, US Department of Forestry; Philip Krug, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; David Stubbs, Oregon State System of Higher Education

Lifelong Education and Training Goal Team

David Campbell, co-chair, Clackamas Educational Service District; Shirley Clark, co-chair, Oregon State System of Higher Education; Colonel Steven Abel, Oregon Military Department; Ron Baker, Oregon Community College Association; Tom Cook, Oregon Public Education Network; Rich Emery, Linfield College; Michael Geraci, Pacific University; John Greydanus, Oregon State System of Higher Education; Joanne Hugi, University of Oregon; Susan Jenkins, Driftwood Library; Ray Lewis, Oregon ED-Net; Pat Middelburg, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Christine Poole-Jones, Portland Public Schools; Don Rushmer, Pacific University; Danny Santos, Oregon Educational Policy/Planning; Bruce Taggart, Portland State University; Vickie Totten, Oregon Community College Association; Barbara van Beyrer, OPTEC, Inc.; Diane Walton, Office of Community College Services

Sustainable Economic Development Goal Team

Pat Oliver, co-chair, Kerr Oliver and Company; Jim Whitty, co-chair, Oregon Economic Development Department; Scott Cooper, Prineville Chamber of Commerce; Ron Fox, PacifiCorp; Mark Miller, Bonneville Power Administration; John Neraas, OPTEC, Inc.; Ed Parker, Parker Communications; Jeff Ritter, Oregon Economic Development Department; Robin Roberts, Central Oregon Economic Development Commission; Trey Senn, Klamath County Economic Development Association; Doug Smith, Oregon Economic Development Department

Universal Service and Access Goal Team

Gary Bauer, co-chair, Oregon Independent Telephone Association; Terry Edvalson, co-chair, Eastern Oregon University; Patty Cutright, Eastern Oregon University; Ben Doty, OTFC, Central Lincoln PUD; Oren Floyd, Sprint-United Telephone; John Glasscock, AARP; Pat Hickey, AT&T; Bob Jenks, Citizens' Utility Board; Nancy Jesuale, Oregon ED-Net; David Rike, Oregon Department of Education; Carol Rutgers, GTE; Mike Sanchez, Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Jim Scheppke, Oregon State Librarian; Jim Schmit, US West Communications; Mike Severns, St. Charles Medical Center; Joan Smith, Oregon Public Utility Commission; Clyde Stryker, Spirit Communications

Special Thanks

In particular, the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council wishes to thank the leaders of the Goal Teams. This plan is the result of their hard work. They are:

Alan Bushong, Capital Community Television Community Development Goal Team

Bruce Crest, Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Rights of Way Sub-team

Kathy Morgan King, Oregon Office of Energy Telecommuting Sub-team

Cathy Britain, RODEO NET Health Care Goal Team

Jeff Butler, Area Health Education Center, OHSU Health Care Goal Team

Jim Crowder, OPTEC, Inc. Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team

Ben Doty, Central Lincoln PUD Intergovernmental Relations Goal Team

Ben Berry, Multnomah County Local/State Integration Sub-team

John Tawney, Oregon State Police Access Sub-team

David White, Oregon Department of Transportation Operational Consolidation Sub-team

Dave Campbell, Clackamas ESD Lifelong Education and Training Goal Team

Shirley Clark, OSSHE Lifelong Education and Training Goal Team

Patrick Oliver, Kerr Oliver and Company Sustainable Economic Development Goal Team

James Whitty, OEDD Sustainable Economic Development Goal Team

Gary Bauer, Oregon. Independent Telephone Assoc. Universal Access and Service Goal Team

Terry Edvalson, Eastern Oregon State College Universal Access and Service Goal Team

And to our corporate sponsors who provided monetary and in-kind match funding for our NTIA grant:

AT&T; Associated Oregon Industries, Inc.; Chambers Communications; Falcon Cable; First Interstate Bank/Wells Fargo; GTE; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; Oregon Cable Telecommunications Association; Oregon Independent Telephone Association; Oregon Telcom; PTI Communications; Portland General Electric; Sprint United/United Telephone; Standard Insurance; and US West Communications.

Introduction

This plan stands on the shoulders of its predecessor. In 1992, Oregon Connects, A Telecommunications Vision and Plan for Oregon was submitted to the Oregon Legislative Assembly. The issues framed in that plan inspired telecommunications activists from throughout the state to mobilize their geographic communities and communities of interest on behalf of their telecommunications future. That activism culminated in the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Conference in 1995, and the passage of Senate Bill 994, which established the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council. With or without this plan, grassroots initiatives will continue to foster access to advanced telecommunications services for Oregonians.

This said, it is clear that it is in the best interests of all Oregonians to plan and act on our telecommunications future as one state. Because of Oregon's geographic and demographic diversity, the danger in reliance on local approaches alone is that we will increasingly become a state of telecommunications "haves and have-nots". The implications of this scenario should be of concern to both rural and urban Oregonians. Without telecommunications resources, rural communities will be unable to participate in 21^st century development strategies, and the burden of development and commerce will increasingly fall on already over-crowded urban communities.

Other collaborations are vital as well. Government agencies must coordinate across jurisdictional boundaries in order to avoid system and data duplication and lack of interoperability. Telecommunications providers and consumers need a forum in which to forge partnerships and pursue win-win strategies. Key sectors such as Health Care and Education need system-wide telecommunications standards, policies and practices in order to deliver state-of-the-art services.

"Planning is everything. The plan is nothing." [Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34^th President of the United States] The power of the Oregon Telecommunications Forum, since its inception in 1994 and today under the auspices of the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council and the Office of the Governor, is not contained in this document. The power is in individuals, representing diverse communities and perspectives, coming together and talking to each other about what is important to their communities and organizations, and creating collaborative solutions. The Oregon Telecommunications Forum isn't a plan, but a movement. In the world of telecommunications, it is difficult to get a document written before it becomes obsolete. The power of this process will be the continued working together and talking together of urban and rural constituents, provider and consumer representatives, and diverse agencies and communities on behalf of our state and our future.

Executive Summary

PURPOSE AND HISTORY OF THE OTFC

The Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council was created in 1995 by Senate Bill 994, in recognition of The Oregon Telecommunications Forum, a grassroots planning process that was deployed in 1994-1995 and included over 1,300 stakeholders from throughout the state. The vision of the OTFC is:

"To improve the quality of life and economic development in Oregon communities by enhancing the delivery of education, health care and government services, and supporting the further development of business through:

1. Affordable telecommunications solutions for every Oregon community, and

2. Training and support necessary to effectively utilize telecommunications."

A similar vision and the need for a statewide forum was identified in Oregon Connects, the 1992 study of advanced telecommunications services needs in Oregon. Oregon Connects described the need for "...a non-profit organization by business, telecommunication companies, education and government as a partnership for promoting implementation of the vision."

Two hundred volunteers, leaders in the fields of business, health care, education, community development and telecommunications technology have served on teams and sub-teams interfacing with the OTFC process. These teams delivered their recommendations to the OTFC in April, 1997. A team comprised of members of the Council and team leaders worked during late April and May to consolidate the work of the teams and to develop this slate of strategies and tactics for insuring affordable and accessible telecommunications resources, services and training for all Oregonians.

STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING THE VISION OF AFFORDABLE,
ACCESSIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESOURCES IN OREGON

Six planning teams were chartered by the OTFC, each focused on a key goal of Senate Bill 994. The work of these "Goals Teams" (Community Development, Health Care, Intergovernmental Relations, Lifelong Education and Training, Sustainable Economic Development, and Universal Service and Access) forms the basis of this Telecommunications Workplan.

The complete plans and recommendations submitted by each of the Goal Teams are included herein. The consolidated approach of all of these teams to achieving the OTFC vision can be summarized in the following six primary strategies:

Strategy #1: Outreach, Education, Technical Assistance and Funding for Under-Served Communities

This strategy proposes a program of outreach, education, technical assistance, and funding for pilot/demonstration projects for telecommunications in under-served communities. Tactics proposed for implementation include:

· Creation of a statewide resource that will serve to coordinate the delivery of outreach, education, technical services and project funding.

· Maintenance and enhancement of the OTFC Clearinghouse and Toolkit, which together provide a comprehensive resource on state and national telecommunications issues, projects, community organizing and funding sources.

Strategy #2: Aggregation of Demand

This strategy outlines an approach through which the state of Oregon will leverage all possible buying power to drive infrastructure into rural and/or under-served areas. The strategy also proposes that the state take specific steps to translate that buying power and infrastructure into accessible and affordable advanced telecommunications services to consumers in those areas that are currently under­served and high­cost. Proposed tactics under this strategy include:

· Formation of strategic partnerships and purchasing collaboratives, leveraged through the state's buying power.

· A requirement that vendors show the location of switches and fiber as a part of all future contracts. The information will be available to the public from a central source.

· Creation of incentives for telecommunications providers to file tariffs/price lists in areas where a frame relay switch exists due to state contracts.

· Establishment of an ongoing process that supports the organization and mobilization of both geographically­based and interest­based communities.

Strategy #3: Incentives and Funding

The strategy outlines an approach to incentives and funding through which the state will leverage to the fullest its investment in existing assets and investments in order to advance telecommunications infrastructure and services. Direct funding strategies will be limited primarily to funding of public sector networks; and to support outreach, education and technical assistance in under-served communities. The state will encourage private investment in telecommunications infrastructure through a program of incentives for providers to build infrastructure and provide affordable access to telecommunications services in under-served areas. Tactics proposed under this strategy include:

· Leveraging the state and local rights of way in order to obtain direct funding, services or infrastructure, or to foster collaborations and partnerships that support the state's telecommunications goals.

· Identification, analysis and development of legislation to create financial incentives, subsidies and other strategies to encourage private investment in infrastructure in under-served areas.

· Funding for locally-based pilot/demonstration projects.

Strategy #4: Leadership and Ongoing, Integrated Planning and Organizing

This strategy advocates the continuance of the OTFC role as "convener", organized within and with the support of the Office of the Governor. Within this role, the OTFC would function as a central statewide forum for education, information, collaboration, innovation, strategic fund development, and planning in support of affordable and accessible telecommunications resources for all Oregonians. The strategy stresses the position that none of the strategies and tactics outlined in this plan can occur in isolation and require a point of synthesis and integration. Tactics proposed under this strategy include:

· Continuance and expansion the collaborations among key communities of interest that have been fostered through the OTFC Goal Team process. The strategy outlines specific committee recommendations.

· Continuance and expansion of the involvement of a diverse spectrum of telecommunications service providers and prospective providers in statewide planning initiatives.

· Establishment of an Innovation Team, with the specific charter to review, analyze and advance new solutions for affordability and accessibility of telecommunications services for Oregon's under-served communities.

· Establishment of a role for the OTFC as a forum in which the critical perspectives can be framed for the purpose of analyzing and making recommendations to the Governor, the Legislature and Communities of Interest on policy issues.

· Creation of awareness of the critical role of telecommunications among state leadership.

Strategy #5: Consolidation of Government Networks

This strategy advocates continuance and expansion of the management attention, legislative oversight and agency collaboration that have enabled government agencies to implement standards and consolidate networks. It proposes ongoing efforts to create and enhance state and local partnerships, state and local integration on the front-end of projects, and data sharing and coordination. Tactics proposed under this strategy include:

· Confederation of government networks.

· Coordination of internal efforts to share and coordinate data.

· Design of state and local telecommunications integration and demand aggregation into the front end of projects.

· Creation of a structure for leveraging state and local partnerships.

Strategy #6: Legislative and Regulatory Action

This strategy proposes that the OTFC and its interfacing work groups and committees work with the legislature and the PUC to address regulatory and legislative solutions that will encourage increased provider investment in infrastructure; enhance consumer access to and ability to use telecommunications services; and foster greater collaboration, consolidation and interoperability among government networks. Tactics proposed under this strategy include:

· Regulatory and legislative actions that encourage private investment in infrastructure in under-served areas.

· Regulatory and legislative action that will enhance access to and ability to use telecommunications resources for all Oregonians.

· Regulatory and legislative action that will foster greater collaboration, consolidation and interoperability among government networks, and facilitate public access to government information.

OTFC goals, planning principles, benchmarks, and papers outlining specific detail of each of these six key strategies are included within this plan.

Telecommunications Work Plan for Oregon

Goals and Vision of the OTFC

The Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council, (OTFC), was appointed in 1996 by Governor John Kitzhaber to ensure that all Oregonians share in the potential benefits of telecommunications technology. Participants in the OTFC process work to ensure affordable access to telecommunications solutions for all Oregon communities and the utilization of telecommunications in the service of economic development, education, healthcare, government services and civic involvement.

GOALS

The goals of the OTFC and this work plan are:

1. Ensure that all Oregonians have affordable access to telecommunications solutions that provide voice, data and image information services.

2. Ensure that all Oregonians have adequate support to make effective use of voice, data and image information services.

3. Expand access to lifelong education and training opportunities so that Oregon's citizens and workforce can function in the emerging information society.

4. Increase the quality of local healthcare available in all areas of the state through telecommunications.

5. Enhance government efficiency and expand citizen access to government services and information through telecommunications.

6. Enhance the private sector's ability to compete in a global economy through telecommunications.

7. Enhance community­building and civic life through telecommunications.

VISION

The vision of the OTFC is to improve quality of life and economic development in Oregon communities by enhancing the delivery of education, health care and government services, and supporting the further development of business through:

1. Affordable telecommunications solutions for every Oregon community, and

2. Training and support necessary to effectively utilize telecommunications.

PLANNING PRINCIPLES

Oregon's Telecommunications Plan is based on the participation of diverse stakeholders statewide including citizens, providers and regulators; and public, private and nonprofit sectors. The Plan will build on existing regional and community planning efforts and encourage local initiatives and solutions.

1. A basic level of service must be available to all Oregonians at affordable rates. There must be a process to define the basic level of service which reflects the needs of Oregonians statewide, the costs of meeting those needs, and the good of society as a whole.

2. Advanced voice, data and video services must be broadly accessible at reasonably comparable rates to Oregonians throughout the state.

3. Any subsidies required to ensure statewide affordability and comparability of telecommunications services and prices must be explicit and equitable.

4. Competitive markets with multiple providers of alternative technologies and services should be encouraged as a means of facilitating the availability and the quality of advanced services.

5. Partnerships among public, private and nonprofit telecommunications users and/or providers should be encouraged in order to help achieve maximum benefit for Communities of Interest. Communities of Interest include geographic communities and interest groups (e.g. libraries, community colleges, small businesses, hospitals, etc.).

6. Integration of existing and new telecommunications networks must be encouraged based on open architecture, interconnectivity, and interoperability.

7. Recognizing that investment will initially be attracted to high density areas, near­term investment in infrastructure in rural and other high cost areas must be encouraged.

8. Consumer protection should be achieved through a balance of regulatory oversight and market forces.

9. There must be clear accountability for allocating resources and for the cost/benefit results of funding decisions and policy changes.

Strategies

The six key strategies and associated tactics are outlined in the six papers that follow. Additional detail can be found in the Goal Team plans that are attached to this document.

Strategy #1: Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance
to Under-Served Communities

BACKGROUND

Under-Served Communities in Oregon

Telecommunications is vital to economic opportunity and civic life in communities. Because of the geographic, demographic and socio-economic diversity of the state, many communities in Oregon are limited in their ability to reach economic and quality of life goals due to the inaccessibility or high cost of advanced telecommunications services. The deregulation of the telecommunications industry, intended to create multiple options and lower prices for consumers, will leave many Oregonians, particularly those in rural and urban under-served areas, without telecommunications services as providers vie for the most lucrative markets.

Strategies for building a "business case" for telecommunications services in under-served areas are already being successfully deployed in other states, and in some Oregon communities Such strategies require a relatively sophisticated understanding of the available and viable opportunities, and significant organizing among a broad community of telecommunications consumers and providers. In Oregon, communities generally fall into one of three categories in terms of their ability to garner advanced telecommunications services:

· Some areas will be served adequately by the marketplace, but may require education and inspiration to ensure that all members of the community have some access to advanced telecommunications services;

· Some areas are not mobilized around telecommunications, and lack the local support needed to make the development and organization of a "business case" for telecommunications effective, and so, may need motivation to recognize the role that telecommunications will play in their community; and

· Some areas are mobilized, but missing critical planning and technical components necessary to convince the marketplace to serve them.

Communities in all the categories present unique opportunities to influence the deployment of telecommunications resources into under-served areas of the state. The purpose of this proposal is to assist these communities with their local organizing efforts by offering a menu of services suited to the local needs.

Opportunities

Opportunities to drive advanced telecommunications services into mobilized communities where there is currently no perceived "market case" for providers to deliver those services exist at varying levels in Oregon. Such opportunities may include:

· Proximity to major state and interstate highways, especially I-5, I-84 and SR-97 where publicly owned easements may be leveraged to lower installation costs;

· Demand aggregation and network sharing opportunities in communities with a large institutional telecommunications consumer, such as government agencies or health care organizations;

· Demand aggregation opportunities among private sector business and individual consumers;

· Access opportunities in communities where services are available through schools, libraries and other community institutions;

· Opportunities in communities with proximity to potential providers, such as power companies, who may view the telecommunications "market case" more broadly than incumbent providers; and

· Adaptation of technologies utilized by non-traditional transport entities, such as cable television and wireless providers, to provide advanced services needed by communities.

These opportunities may be leveraged on a scale in which advanced telecommunications services are available and affordable to the home. It may be more feasible in some communities to create community telecenters in which advanced services would be affordable and accessible to individual consumers at a central location. Because there is no "one size fits all" solution, communities must do the front end assessment, organizing and planning work required to define their goals, garner stakeholder support and create their own local "business case".

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

The state will promote a program of outreach, education, technical assistance, and funding for pilot/demonstration projects for telecommunications in under-served communities.

Tactic #1: Fund, via a collaboration between the Office of the Governor, the OTFC and the Oregon Economic Development Department, a statewide resource that will serve to coordinate the delivery of outreach, education, technical services and project funding. Services provided to communities via this strategy will include:

· Provision of information about telecommunications approaches and options for communities in various stages of organizing. The information will be made available through direct outreach, presentations in communities, in print and in electronic format.

· Support for the efforts of communities that have already begun the work of organizing to build a business case for telecommunications infrastructure and services in their communities, as they represent the best opportunity to leverage resources in support of rural infrastructure/service deployment. Examples of support and assistance that could be made available to communities via this approach include:

· Needs assessment based on the economic and quality of life goals of the community;

· Business planning assistance;

· Development of an inventory of existing networks and infrastructure, including existing commercial fiber and other networks owned and/or utilized by government, education and health care institutions;

· Grants research and assistance with other funding opportunities;

· Organizing to optimize levels of existing services, such as increased extended area service;

· Technical assistance in the planning and establishment of local telecommunications projects such as extended area service, interconnections and telecenters;

· Mediation of disputes between consumers and providers; and

· Facilitation of linkages between technical needs of local entities and potential service provider organizations throughout the state.

Examples:

The following examples illustrate a few of the methods through which mobilized communities can enhance the accessibility and affordability of telecommunications services in their local area.

· Extended Area Service (EAS)

Rural phone companies charge mileage to cover the costs of phone service in low volume, primarily rural areas. As commerce centers in rural communities decline, rural residents are increasingly forced to call distant towns for consumer information, banking assistance, health care, public safety and other services and information. Additionally, calling areas often do not conform to the boundaries of economic, social or business communities in rural areas. As a result, rural residents are charged high fees to make the most routine telephone calls, or to receive telecommunications services such as Internet access. EAS is a way for communities to redefine their calling area.

EAS requires rural communities to pre-pay for an amount of long distance service that equals the return required by the phone company in order to provide the service. EAS works because it reduces the disincentive to call. Under EAS, rural residents can make a much higher volume of calls for the same total cost that they would pay for much fewer calls without EAS. This solution to rural long distance rates also can provide communities with essentially toll-free dial-up to the Internet.

EAS implementation is a complicated and time-consuming process, involving PUC requirements, community education and mobilization, and in some cases a public vote. Via the project outlined in this proposal, communities could receive expert assistance to conceptualize, organize and implement the EAS process.

· Interconnections Between Cities

The number of trunk lines from one city to another in rural areas can be extremely limited. The use of the system for voice purposes alone often results in busy signals, and makes data transmission unworkable. Local phone companies may not receive enough assured revenue in such areas to invest in appropriately-sized interconnections.

Mobilized communities have several potential approaches to improving interconnections. Strategies include organizing the community to support a phone surcharge, or securing low interest federal loans to enable the rural phone company to upgrade the system.

Like EAS, community-driven implementation of interconnection upgrades are complex, requiring expertise in funding options, consumer organizing, and provider/consumer partnerships, which could be made accessible to communities under this proposal.

· Telecenters

There are a number of other challenges communities face relative to telecommunications that vary depending on the size of the population, workforce opportunities, tax base, etc. For example, many businesses cannot afford to hire specialized telecommunications agents to solve the problems they are facing. There are often no local service organizations with the technical ability to assist businesses and public or non-profit organizations with their smaller telecommunications issues. There are fewer opportunities in rural areas for residents to "test-drive" computers and data communications technology, preventing residents from understanding how their work and home lives can be enhanced through telecommunications.

To address problems with these issues, business and public organizations in some communities have formed partnerships to establish sites where data communications technology can be demonstrated and used, where demand can be more effectively aggregated to drive investment, and where technical assistance can be provided to the local user base across all sectors.

The telecenters in turn provide a hub for delivery of advanced services. Specialized needs of individual institutions and businesses can then be met more effectively. Historically, the cost to any single organization to innovate, test, and implement new services has been prohibitive. For many information-age organizations, the rapid evolution of technology and standards requires expensive system upgrades on an annual basis. Broader partnering with the telecenter model has enabled leveraged access to current technology and advanced services that has led to measurable economic growth, economic diversification, and advanced infrastructure investments.

These strategies can significantly enhance the educational and economic opportunities in rural areas. Again, the organizing process is complicated, and requires expertise in the identification and recruitment of "anchor tenants", knowledge of grants and other funding opportunities, and the ability to craft and organize community-supported subsidies.

· Resources Required

Resources are being sought for this project via a collaboration with the Oregon Economic Development Department, and via federal loans or matching funds.

Resources sought through this proposal would be used to fund the state's portion of the following:

· Local staff for telecenters or other local pilot/demonstration projects;

· Equipment required for the project;

· Wiring, in cases in which there is no existing infrastructure that can be leveraged;

· Staff and community training in the operation and use of the telecommunications resources.

Resources are being sought from other sources to fund a centralized project coordinator position. The coordinator role will be similar to that of an Executive Director. The OTFC will be seeking an individual who will aggressively pursue the development of funds and local partnerships, provide consulting support to participating communities, and coordinate projects statewide. (Note: This recommendation has been submitted in the form of a proposal to the Oregon Economic Development Department.)

Tactic #2: Maintain and enhance the OTFC Clearinghouse and Toolkit.

The OTFC Clearinghouse is currently the most comprehensive resource for information about state and community-based telecommunications planning, initiatives and funding sources available on the Internet. The Clearinghouse was designed, developed and is currently maintained by Guy Alvis of Oregon Telcom, with research support from the OTFC staff. A complete and current informational resource is a critical component of the outreach and education strategy outlined in Tactic #1. Additionally, the OTFC Toolkit has been designed as a guide to assist communities to organize stakeholders and partners, assess needs and identify appropriate telecommunications projects. Both the Clearinghouse and the Toolkit must expand and be revised to stay current with the changes in the telecommunications environment and the evolving status of telecommunications in Oregon communities.

Tactic #3: Identify legislative or regulatory strategies to support local telecommunications planning, organizing and action. Such strategies may include proposal of legislation or regulations that support such local initiatives, or the identification and removal of legislative, regulatory and policy barriers.

· Support for local initiatives may include recommendations such as legislation requiring local dial-up to the internet for all Oregon communities, and strategies for insuring comparable rates for rural consumers, or in communities where infrastructure exists due to aggregated government demand.

· Recommended remedies to legislative and regulatory barriers may include:

· Shortening hearing cycle response time;

· Ability to share trunk lines;

· Ability of the state to purchase excess capacity for resale;

· Flexibility to include multiple technologies and providers.

Strategy #2: Aggregation of Demand

BACKGROUND

One of the fundamental ideas to emerge from the original Oregon Telecommunications Forum Report to the Governor was the need for Oregon to work with the private sector and utilize market­based strategies to achieve our goals in telecommunications. This was to be done by encouraging group purchasing of telecommunications services in coordination with state­wide telecommunications goals. This idea was based on a few simple observations:

· The telecommunications marketplace is primarily driven by private sector decision making: The major providers are private companies, the infrastructure is created by private investors, and the trend is towards pricing based on open, competitive markets, rather than regulation.

· Government is the largest single telecommunications consumer, but has traditionally purchased telecommunications in a fragmented manner, without consideration of state­wide telecommunications goals.

· The major opportunity for government to influence the shape and structure of telecommunications services throughout the state will not come through public investment, incentives, or subsidies. Rather, the best opportunity to coordinate telecommunications infrastructure with state­wide goals will be to coordinate government purchasing of telecommunications services with broadly­based communities of interest.

It is important to note that the original OTF considered and rejected the idea of direct public investment in telecommunications infrastructure. This conclusion was reached after analysis revealed the general consensus that government should not "get into" the telecommunications business, the poor record of other state's experience in "picking technologies" to invest in, and that the costs would be far beyond Oregon's capabilities. In the end, it was felt that direct public investment would diminish private investment in public carrier networks available to business and the general citizenry.

The original OTF Report went on to state:

· Communities of Interest would be self­generating and self­defining and form out of a common recognition of needs

· Communities of Interest could be geographically based or cut across economic (or functional) sectors.

· State and other governmental agencies would participate in Communities of Interest as telecommunications customers.

· Telecommunications providers should participate in the Communities of Interest.

· Communities of Interest would form the base of the state­wide planning model, be entrepreneurial in the sense that their objective would be to purchase telecommunications services on terms favorable to their stated objectives, and be largely independent of the OTFC.

The OTFC Solutions Team reaffirms the primary importance of Communities of Interest to securing Oregon's telecommunications future. However, we advocate that OTFC take the additional step of providing a framework for involving geographic and functional Communities of Interest.

Visualization of Success

A successful statewide telecommunications process would produce an organization for telecommunications planning that:

· Is flexible and responsive to changes in technology and variations in regional needs and priorities,

· Makes efficient use of public resources to leverage private, market­based decision­making,

· Provides for broad participation for all Oregonians,

· Fosters opportunities for numerous, diverse competition in the marketplace,

· Advances the availability of telecommunications technology throughout the state, and

· Creates an attractive environment for private investment, reducing the need for publicly funded telecommunications services.

The experience of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), with its Fast Packet program provided an example for discussion by the Solutions Team.

Solutions Team Findings:

1. Private sector investment and deployment of infrastructure to under-served areas can be accelerated through collaboration between telecommunications consumers and coordinated purchasing activity resulting in an "aggregation of demand".

2. The DAS Fast Packet program demonstrates that action by the State of Oregon can accelerate the availability of the benefits of advanced telecommunications services available throughout the state and provide the "anchor tenant" necessary for service providers to offer lower prices to business and private parties. The state will continue to expand its role as an anchor tenant, and will leverage its buying power in support of both statewide and local networks.

3. Successful deployment of technology through public sector action alone is no guarantee that the technology will be available to all. For example, only US West and GTE (so far) have filed tariffs for Frame Relay as a result of the Fast Packet project. Private businesses in areas served by other providers cannot access the technology even though public agencies can!

4. Although a primary goal of the OTFC, present law (in the opinion of the Attorney General) precludes DAS from coordinating public purchasing decisions with the public policy objective of delivering advanced services and lower prices to private parties as well as public agencies.

5. DAS, small telecommunications providers and other Communities of Interest expressed great concern that statewide aggregation of demand can lead to reduced competition or exclusion of smaller bidders. Coordinated purchasing and aggregation of demand, needs to be designed to foster competition between companies and technologies for the long­term benefit of the people of Oregon; "Winner takes all" strategies may produce or sustain monopolies and delay the development of competition. The state has an interest in insuring that its aggregation strategy fosters competition and includes for local and regional providers.

6. Collaboration and aggregation of demand will continue to occur, with or without OTFC coordination. The OTFC's continued, active participation will provide representation of and support for public policy objectives in the arena.

7. There will be limited state funding for new telecommunications infrastructure and for the creation and implementation of new telecommunications projects. Where investment by the state does occur, priority will be given to communities that are least likely to be served by the marketplace. In some instances, the state may act in the role of "Capacity Manager".

8. Aggregation of demand doesn't "just happen". While the incentives for organization can be found in reduced costs through additional leverage in the marketplace, it takes staff time and effort to produce the cooperation needed to put a proposal together. DAS has provided a model for funding through the capture of a portion of the savings created by aggregation of demand. The additional staff effort may be "self-funded" through these savings if the concept of "self-funding" proves viable. State outreach, education, and personal assistance at the local and regional level, for both public and private sectors, should be considered as a state project. Nebraska has a successful state effort using this technique.

9. Similarly, cooperation between potentially competitive groups requires leadership and defining how accountability will be maintained. In government, this can be accomplished by a Governor's directive or by legislation. In local communities and the private sector, cooperation may require the formation of "purchasing cooperatives" or other structures to clarify the responsibilities and risks in a manner satisfactory to participants.

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

The state should leverage all possible buying power to drive infrastructure into rural and/or under-served areas, and to translate that buying power and infrastructure into accessible and affordable advanced telecommunications services to consumers in those areas that are currently under­served and high­cost.

Tactic #1: The OTFC should establish, "recognize", and provide support to two types of Communities of Interest: geographic and functional.

Geographic Communities of Interest:

· The goal is to provide comprehensive and inclusive representation for all interests (functions) within a particular region or area.

· Geographic COIs must establish priorities based on regional demand, identify levels of service to be deployed, monitor progress towards their objectives, and coordinate the plans and activities of the functional COIs for their area.

· An initial Geographic COI could be formed around the Regional Strategies/Economic Development areas. Based upon experience, the Geographic areas may evolve according to the development needs and objectives of the area involved.

Functional Communities of Interest:

· The goal is to provide comprehensive, inclusive, statewide representation for all interests within a particular functional area (industry sector, etc).

· Functional COIs must establish goals, identify standards, identify sources of funding, develop specific RFPs (requests for proposals), and implement plans.

· An initial, functional COI should be formed around the Planning Goal Teams. Additional functional COIs should be encouraged when this will lead to a more efficient or focused aggregation of statewide demand.

Tactic #2: The state should leverage its buying power to form strategic partnerships and purchasing collaboratives.

· Analyze the levels of service provided, or likely to be provided to communities by the competitive telecommunications marketplace and establish policies, methods, and priorities for state investment.

· Analyze state contract specifications. Develop contract requirements that balance procurement of low government service costs with opportunities for meaningful competition and local and regional provider participation.

· Identify legislative and regulatory barriers to community purchasing collaboratives and public-private partnerships.

· Seek legislation specifically authorizing and directing the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to form public­private purchasing cooperatives for the purpose of securing telecommunications services.

· Deploy a program of outreach, education and technical assistance to communities that provides tools for business planning, community organizing and implementation of local telecommunications initiatives.

· Provide facilitation and assistance to communities of interest that will enable them to organize, plan and implement telecommunications solutions that are collaborative and integrated throughout the state.

Tactic #3: The state should require that vendors show the location of switches and fiber as a part of all future contracts. The information will be available to the public from a central source.

· A primary issue raised throughout the OTF and the OTFC goal team process is the difficulty posed to state and local planning and organizing initiatives due to lack of information about the existing infrastructure.

· Such a requirement could result, in the long term, in "overlay maps" illustrating all the opportunities to collaborate, resource­share and aggregate.

Tactic #4: The state should create incentives for telecommunications providers to file tariffs/price lists in areas where a frame relay switch exists due to state contracts.

· This is a critical recommendation if state aggregation strategies are to contribute to the OTFC vision of accessible and affordable advanced telecommunications services for all Oregonians.

· DAS should develop and include "desirable" elements to be included in state contracting and RFP processes.

Tactic #5: The state should establish an ongoing process that supports the organization and mobilization of both geographically­based and interest­based communities.

· This strategy should include full exploration and leveraging of opportunities that create linkages and share resources between and among communities of interest and within geographic communities.

Strategy #3: Funding and Incentives

BACKGROUND

Incentives: Two Categories

Incentive strategies surfaced during the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council process which can be grouped into two broad categories: consumer incentives and provider incentives. Consumer incentives are primarily procedural, focusing on creating policies and practices that will facilitate consumer involvement in telecommunications initiatives that benefit the state, such as telecommuting and resource-sharing. Provider incentives are primarily financial, focused on providing a financial rationale for telecommunications providers to build infrastructure into under-served areas and build excess capacity.

In the upcoming phase of the OTFC process, the most likely arena in which to address consumer incentives is via ongoing collaboration among communities of interest such as health care, education and community development. As these groups forward recommendations to their communities at large, the OTFC, the legislature, and the PUC, specific incentive strategies should be a part of their overall action agenda. Provider incentives, however, are likely to require a more centralized approach.

Approach to Funding

In this plan, priority has been given to funding approaches that leverage existing investment. One assumption that has been held throughout state telecommunications planning cycles since the early 1990's is that state funding for new telecommunications infrastructure will be extremely limited. The Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council has also adopted this assumption.

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

The state will leverage to the fullest its investment in existing assets and investments in order to advance telecommunications infrastructure and services. Direct funding strategies will be limited primarily to funding of public sector networks; and to support outreach, education and technical assistance in under-served communities. The state will encourage private investment in telecommunications infrastructure through a program of incentives for providers to build infrastructure and provide affordable access to telecommunications services in under-served areas.

Tactic #1: Charter a Rights of Way Committee to identify and analyze opportunities to leverage state and local rights of way in order to obtain direct funding, services or infrastructure, or to foster collaborations and partnerships that support the state's telecommunications goals.

The rationale for and methods of leveraging public rights of way was a topic of much debate both in the 1997 Legislature and among OTFC participants. Both incumbent providers and new providers expressed frustration with the inconsistencies and delays created by locally-based franchising methods. Cities expressed interest in the creation of a model statewide telecommunications ordinance, but wish to see the franchising process and revenues remain under local control.

The Committee should be comprised of representatives of incumbent and new providers, and local franchising authorities. Members of the Community Development Goal Team were active in framing rights of way issues, and may wish to participate as part of the Committee. Issues to be addressed by this Committee were identified by OTFC Goal Teams as follows:

· Identification and mitigation of barriers to leveraging rights of way;

· Development of a fair compensation formula for all users;

· Development of vehicles to speed entry into rights of way, such as uniform telecommunications ordinances and codified, uniform telecommunications regulations at state and local levels;

· Consideration of legislation for public non-commercial space and funding to enable community use of that space on telecommunications systems using the public rights of way; and

· Exploration of the possibilities of leveraging all rights of way opportunities to encourage building of telecommunications infrastructure. (Examples of such opportunities could include building of roads, or electrical projects).

The Committee should be chartered and established within a time frame that will enable any legislative action to be addressed in the next biennium.

Tactic #2: Charter an Incentives Committee to identify, analyze and propose legislation for creation of financial incentives, subsidies and other strategies to encourage building of infrastructure in under-served areas.

Several potential approaches to provider incentives were surfaced on the Sustainable Economic Development Goal Team and the Universal Service and Access Team, although the amount of time available for the teams did not allow for analysis sufficient to provide specific recommendations. Members from these teams may wish to participate on the Incentives Committee.

Approaches that were identified by the teams and should be forwarded as part of the options studied by an Incentives Committee include:

· Creation of enterprise zones;

· Tax incentives such as accelerated depreciation strategies and tax credits;

· Direct subsidies; and

· Loans.

The Committee should be chartered and established within a time frame that will enable any legislative action to be addressed in the next biennium.

Tactic #3: Provide funding for locally-based pilot/demonstration projects. Funding should be made available for local project staff, equipment, wiring (in cases in which there is not existing infrastructure), and training for staff and the community in the operation and use of the telecommunications resources available through the project. (For a description of this recommendation, see Strategy #1: Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance to Under-served Communities.)

Tactic #4: Leverage the combined demand of state and local government entities to act as anchor tenant for obtaining telecommunications resources. (For a description of this recommendation, See Strategy #2: Aggregation of Demand.)

Strategy #4: Leadership, and Ongoing, Integrated Planning and Organizing

BACKGROUND

The OTFC was established and chartered in 1995 under Senate Bill 994. The impetus behind SB994 was the Oregon Telecommunications Forum, a statewide telecommunications planning process. The OTF embodied the principle that in order to be effective, telecommunications planning must be broad and inclusive. With regard to telecommunications planning in Oregon, "inclusivity" has some specific and critical implications. An inclusive planning process that is able to address the unique characteristics and issues in the State of Oregon must be able to:

· Provide a forum for discussion, collaboration and partnering between telecommunications consumers and providers on both a local and statewide basis;

· Take into consideration the divided nature of the state with regard to its rural and urban communities, and the existing inequities in telecommunications resources. Exclusive strategies should be avoided: Oregon must leverage its resources and plan for its telecommunications future as one state;

· Provide a central rallying point for members of specific communities of interest from throughout the state, such as Health Care, Education, Libraries and Community Development networks, to plan and collaborate as one "community";

· Provide linkage between disparate communities of interest and facilitate the sharing and leveraging of resources, networks, information and demand;

· Provide an avenue for participation for a large number of stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, interests and expertise. Oregonian Michael Powell is said to have stated that "Oregon is a place where ten people can start anything, or stop anything". Oregonians believe this about themselves. It is important for any statewide planning initiative in Oregon to provide a vehicle on which all interested stakeholders can get on board.

To date, an estimated 1500 individuals from throughout the state have been directly involved with OTF and OTFC planning initiatives. One of the primary recommendations emerging from the OTFC planning teams is the continuation of an ongoing, integrated planning process in which members of communities of interest from throughout the state will have a central point of contact for collaboration, as well as integration with the planning and initiatives of other communities.

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

The OTFC should continue to function as a "convener", organized within and with the support of the Office of the Governor. Within this role, the OTFC should function as a central statewide forum for education, information, collaboration, innovation, strategic fund development, and planning in support of affordable and accessible telecommunications resources for all Oregonians. None of the recommendations outlined in this plan can occur in isolation. The OTFC should serve as the point of synthesis and integration.

Tactic #1: Continue and expand the collaborations among key communities of interest that have been fostered through the OTFC Goal Team process. Specifically the OTFC should:

· Charter a Health Care Telecommunications Committee representing key stakeholders from throughout the state. The purpose of the committee will be to conduct the scope of work outlined in the Health Care Goal Team report. This scope of work identifies the critical issues and barriers to effective and widespread use of telemedicine in Oregon, including: health care provider education in the use of telecommunications; availability of telecommunications capability; cost/reimbursement formulas; policies and organizational structures that impact the use of telecommunications; licensing practices (currently structured according to state boundaries); liability implications; effective information exchange; and standards for connections and data.

The Committee should establish priorities and identify key issues that may require legislative, regulatory or system-wide collaborative solutions. The Committee should be chartered and established within a time frame that will enable any legislative action to be addressed in the next biennium.

· Charter a Lifelong Learning Telecommunications Committee that expands upon the original OTFC Lifelong Learning Goal Team to include additional stakeholders, with a focus on policy options relative to telecommunications and distance learning.

The Lifelong Learning Goal Team identified the need for increased collaboration throughout Oregon's education network in areas such as:

· Program-level collaboration between OSSHE and the Community Colleges on 4-year degree programs;

· Planning and content development collaboration between private industry and the education community;

· Collaboration between higher education and K-12 for the delivery, electronic and otherwise, of special K-12 programs;

· Communication and collaboration among public and private educational institutions,

· System-wide agreement to create policies and practices that transition public educational organizations away from a "competitive model".

Many of the issues raised above are systemic issues that are inter-related with, but not specific to, telecommunications and distance learning. The original Lifelong Learning Goal Team was hindered by the "chicken or the egg" aspect of the above issues, finding it difficult, for instance, to address the telecommunications aspects of distance learning before establishing common ground on content and programs. The team has recommended that the OTFC narrow the scope of the Lifelong Learning Telecommunications Committee such that it is focused on policy options in the arenas of:

· Sharing and leveraging investment in telecommunications networks;

· Securing telecommunications capacity adequate to the current and future goals for education in Oregon;

· Standards and protocols for the transmission of data;

· Content and administrative policies relative to distance learning; and

· Collaborations that facilitate innovative partnerships with, for example, V-Tel and the National Guard.

The Lifelong Learning Telecommunications Committee should establish priorities and identify key issues that may require legislative, regulatory or system-wide collaborative solutions. The Committee should be chartered and established within a time frame that will enable any legislative action to be addressed in the next biennium.

· Charter a Telecommuting Task Force to address the barriers to using telecommuting as a common business practice. The group should be comprised of private industry, state and local government employers, representatives of labor unions, personnel administration, workers compensation and labor law disciplines.

The Task Force will be responsible for drafting legislation, model personnel policies, management practices, management education models, supervision models, workers compensation rules and other vehicles needed to truly make telecommuting a viable and cost beneficial alternative for Oregon employers and workers.

The Task Force should be chartered and established within a time frame that will enable any legislative action to be addressed in the next biennium.

(For more information on this strategy, see Strategy #5: Consolidation of Government Networks.)

· Charter a committee to develop a model process for systematically involving political subdivisions prior to a Request for Proposal (RFP) being issued in order to bundle their needs with state government. The purpose of the initiative is to aggregate demand for telecommunications services to take advantage of economies of scale, reduced costs, and to create demand for infrastructure in rural communities.

(For more information on this strategy, see Strategy #5: Consolidation of Government Networks.)

Tactic #2: Continue and expand the involvement of a diverse spectrum of telecommunications service providers and prospective providers in statewide planning initiatives.

One of the positive dynamics that has been established through the OTF and OTFC process is the dialogue between telecommunications providers and consumers. There are numerous opportunities to build on this consumer/provider dialogue. Groups working on strategies such as state and local aggregation of demand, funding and incentives, legislative and regulatory strategies, and innovative technological solutions should have representation of both consumer and provider perspectives. "Provider perspectives" should include existing and traditional providers, new and emerging providers, and small, locally-based provider organizations. "Consumer perspective" should include both large consumers of telecommunications services such as government agencies and telecommunications-intensive businesses, and representatives of individual consumers and under-served communities.

One of the difficulties faced by the 10-member OTF Council has been the challenge of taking action based on the consensus of a group whose individual priorities and objectives are often opposed. Council members continue to believe that solutions that are feasible from both a consumer and provider standpoint, although more arduous to reach, are in the end more viable and beneficial.

It is anticipated in the next phase of this process that the OTFC will receive specific recommendations to forward to the PUC and the legislature. In support of this action, controversy and areas of disagreement should be surfaced in the discussion and design phase of crafting those recommendations. The result will be workable, implementation-ready solutions.

Tactic #3: Convene an Innovation Team with the specific charter to review, analyze and advance new solutions for affordability and accessibility of telecommunications services for Oregon's under-served communities.

This recommendation surfaced during the later stages of the planning process, as small groups of provider representatives and project researchers surfaced a variety of innovative business and technical solutions. Some of these potential solutions and approaches are new ideas surfaced by OTFC teams and sub-groups; others are drawn from existing initiatives in Oregon and other states. They include approaches such as partnerships with non-traditional providers such as electric utilities; wireless options; local provider strategies that can profitably support services based on a low level of aggregated local demand. This team should provide an ongoing "skunk-works" type forum. Other groups working on specific approaches such as leveraging demand or rights of way should be linked to this group so that they can exchange and build on emerging ideas and subject new ideas and approaches to further analysis. This team may also be an appropriate forum for a collaboration with the Lifelong Learning Committee to craft a recommendation on Oregon's role with regard to Internet II.

Tactic #4: Establish the OTFC as a forum in which the critical perspectives can be framed for the purpose of analyzing and making recommendations to the Governor, the Legislature and Communities of Interest on policy issues.

Complex policy issues have already been surfaced based on the existing work of the OTFC Goal Teams. These issues include policy level questions such as:

· How can we deploy demand aggregation strategies while still creating competitive opportunities for smaller, local providers;

· In what circumstances might the state participate as a "provider of last resort" in under-served communities? What would be the parameters of such state action? What would be the parameters of state withdrawal from such action?

The future work of Committees to be chartered via this plan will undoubtedly surface additional issues of similar complexity. In addition to its role as convener and as a point of integration for the planning efforts of diverse communities and committees, the OTFC should begin to frame and make recommendations on these policy level issues.

Tactic #5: Foster awareness of the critical role of telecommunications among state leadership.

OTFC research into telecommunications planning and projects in other states has established leadership as the single common element distinguishing successful initiatives. In most cases, that leadership has come from the Office of the Governor, as statewide telecommunications solutions must cross agency, sector and community boundaries. Participants throughout the OTFC process have expressed satisfaction with the current structural location of the OTFC within the Office of the Governor, and feel that the continued participation of the Governor will be increasingly critical as solutions move from general planning to specific recommendations and implementation.

Strategy #5: Consolidation of Government Networks

BACKGROUND

In a climate of budget constrains government throughout Oregon is under pressure to provide a higher level of service to the public. Telecommunications technology carries the promise of enabling Oregon governments to meet this demand.

Historically, individual agencies have "gone their own way" in implementing networks in support of their organizations' respective mission. This has lead to inefficient, duplicative investment throughout the state.

In the past few years, management attention, legislative oversight, agency collaboration and technology evolution have enabled government agencies to implement standards and begin to consolidate these networks. These early successes have laid the foundation that our team can now build on to ensure that all public institutions have the opportunity to reap the rewards of cooperation and collaboration.

Successes

The government sector has realized the following successes in addressing the above referenced problem statement:

· The Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) led design and implementation of Metropolitan Area Network in Salem that established standards-based interagency communication. Standards were implemented statewide and became the foundation for consolidation of duplicative networks.

· The first attempt to aggregate State agency demand occurred between Portland and Salem. The state procured a DS-3 link at significant savings by consolidating individual agency T-1s between the two locations.

· The Fast Packet procurement has effectively positioned and leveraged the State as an anchor tenant which has provided state agencies and political subdivisions with a convenient vehicle for purchasing frame relay and emerging advanced communications services at uniform rates throughout the state.

· Increasing collaboration between state agencies, K-12, Higher Education and local governments, e.g.:

· CJIS;

· DAS: Working with individual agencies began consolidating existing and future network deployments onto state-managed backbone, avoiding duplication of investment;

· Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT);

· Transportation Safety Action Plan;

· June Ross project to develop an ODOT safety management system.

· Sharing websites between local and state government; and

· The backbone between DAS, Higher Education and OPEN (K-12 consortium).

· Legislature passed SB1145 to move Corrections responsibilities to counties - set the stage for an improvement in the process.

· SB994 created legislation enabling DAS to play a leadership role in telecommunications planning and implementation.

· Volume purchase agreements throughout the state:

· Telephone switch agreement; and

· Long distance agreement.

· Employment's 157 kiosk statewide network.

· ED-Net provides telecommunications access to communities that might not otherwise have access.

Vision

The Intergovernmental Relations Team of the OTFC was chartered to develop strategies and detailed workplans that will enable Oregon to attain Goal #5 as identified by the Oregon Telecommunications Forum Council (OTFC). Goal #5 requires enhancement of government efficiency and expanded citizen access to government services and information through telecommunications. Success will enable government at all levels to deliver a higher level of service in a climate of shrinking budgets. Emphasis has been placed on strategies that leverage the State's role in assuring that advanced telecommunications services are deployed so that all Oregonians have access. While a great deal of focus has been and continues to be needed in rural Oregon, attention must be expanded to other sectors of society that are under-served and may be left out of this process.

Stakeholder Analysis

In addition to citizens in general, stakeholders include:

· Service providers, utilities (both traditional and emerging). The builders of the infrastructure, the solution providers. Their actual stake in this is to make investments that will pay off. Two major associations that could impact this process are the Oregon Independent Telephone Association (OITA) and the cable industry. The emerging Internet service providers are also an important group to involve in this process.

· The private sector which is represented by the following associations: Chambers of Commerce, National Federation of Local Independent Businesses (NFLIB), and the Association of Industries (AOI).

· The Governor is the executive sponsor for addressing issues in this area, and will lead the decision making process with regard to policy choices and removing barriers, i.e. are we going to subsidize rural Oregon.

· The legislature will continue to supply leadership in the policy formation arena and will ultimately be involved in removing barriers through the legislative process.

· The education community. K-12 will be a key stakeholder in this process. OPEN and the Department of Education are playing a key leadership role in driving the deployment of advanced communications services and will receive substantial federal assistance from the universal service fund as defined in the Federal 1996 Act. Higher Education (OSSHE) has the potential of acting as an anchor tenant in communities and supplying the technical expertise necessary to ensure requisite level of support to ensure successful implementation.

· Cities, Counties. The League of Oregon Cities and Associated Oregon Counties. Local governments are on the front lines of providing government services to citizens. These organizations stand to benefit from the State's ability to aggregate demand and leverage statewide buying power. There are also opportunities to coordinate deployment of networks between the state and local governments to avoid duplicative investments.

Barriers

Barriers to achieving the vision include:

· Ballot Measure 47. The impacts of Ballot Measure 47 will reduce revenues for local governments. It will be difficult for local governments to justify the capital investment required to build the network infrastructure required to support emerging applications.

· Legacy Environment. The Legacy environment hinders the adoption of IP standards, e.g., data processing platforms, internetworks, phone systems.

· Year 2000. The Year 2000 effort will compete for limited resources and inhibit new initiatives - "no new initiatives" mandate - statement assessment for legislature/Governor. The Year 2000 efforts are being driven by DAS and an assessment is under way to determine how big the issue is.

· Driving collaboration at the local level. We lack a vehicle for state, federal and local collaboration. We need to develop a vehicle for driving collaboration without building additional bureaucracy to manage it. An example of an alternative model is the recent DAS contract to supply long distance services to all governments in Oregon.

· LATAs. The LATAs add additional cost.

· Infrastructure inadequacies. Even if they wanted the services, in some cases the infrastructure will not support the application.

· Complexities of the issues. Government bodies must compete for increasingly scarce technical resources to manage the deployments of advanced communications services. The inability of the public sector to compete with the private sector for trained, seasoned professionals is and will continue to grow as a significant issue.

· Aggregating demand may not be a panacea. Senate Bill 994 enables the State (DAS) to enter into ten year contracts with vendors. While long term contracts provide incentives for providers to invest and take risks, these objectives may conflict with purchasing rules which seek to promote competition. In addition, aggregation tends to consolidate vendors to a smaller more manageable number. This may tend to reduce the diversity of products and services, may reduce the cost of managing vendors and may tend to favor doing business with larger multinational suppliers.

· Loss of control, real and perceived.

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

Continue and expand the management attention, legislative oversight and agency collaboration that have enabled government agencies to implement standards and consolidate networks. Focus ongoing efforts on creating and enhancing state and local partnerships, state and local integration on the front-end of projects, and data sharing and coordination.

Tactic #1: Confederation of networks. Specific initiatives include:

· Fast Packet Deployment. Continue the deployment of frame relay network connections to replace current point-to-point data circuits. The implementation of this strategy should decrease the cost of equivalent network services.

· Some of the benefits we will see include reduced network operating costs, improved service levels through investment and current technologies, a shift of "transport" management to the service provider. It will position agencies for the "next generation" of network technology, and will provide a consolidation of facilities.

· DAS will lead a team of government agencies to develop, promote, and monitor conversion plans. We will work with the cities and counties to promote aggregation primarily through their associations.

· Consolidate Network Operation Centers (NOCs). The initiative is to consolidate current network operation centers into one virtual NOC.

· The major cost associated with this initiative is that some agencies will have to convert their network tools. However, the benefits of having one virtual NOC are great. There will be increased levels of service providing active backup and shared expertise; there will be improved operating efficiencies with the sharing of tools and personnel; we will achieve a standard network management tool and process as well as a consistency of networks for further consolidation.

· Network Management Team: Some of the barriers we might encounter include separating the network management from the application support; the reluctance of agencies to give up potential ownership or control of internal networks; and the need to develop a high level of trust between DAS and other agencies.

· To overcome these barriers, we suggest a plan to form a Network Management Team implemented and chaired by DAS that will identify functions that can be shared between agencies. This team will also establish technical standards, policies and practices as well as interagency service level agreements where appropriate. The team will also determine long term management strategies for the state's wide area network, such as internal or external resources.

· Migrate to IP Networks. Migrate off legacy proprietary networks to standard TCP/IP networks to enable network interoperability, consolidation, accessibility, and information sharing.

· This will require an upgrade of networks to more of an internetworked environment. Some agencies will require a desktop conversion and there will need to be an additional front-end gateway to the legacy systems.

· The benefits to be realized include network interoperability, reduced cost by sharing network facilities, reduced costs because of the eliminated network gateways and duplicated circuits. It may also make some environments Year 2000 compliant.

· Barriers to making this happen will be that legacy applications may require modifications to function in a pure IP environment and there will be agency funding limitations for technology. It should be noted that many of these legacy applications are used statewide by political subdivisions so once again it will be important to ensure local input to the transition planning process.

· Our recommendation is to have agencies submit conversion plans and anticipated costs to DAS in advance as part of the IRM process. DAS will then actively ensure local input is considered and monitor the conversion process.

· Consolidate Large Statewide Networks. Initiative to consolidate the DAS, OSSHE and OPEN networks. The initiative includes the consolidation of Internet access, establishment of network exchange sites where private Internet Service Providers (ISP) can connect to the consolidated network and establishing an expanded statewide backbone network. Evaluate opportunities for integration and use of the Oregon National Guard network.

· In implementing this strategy, costs may increase but they will be offset by the elimination of redundant functions. There will also be an unknown "latency" demand for network services. One benefit will be a reduction in cost by keeping Internet traffic destined for Oregon public agencies instate. Other benefits include improved service levels and built in redundancy. It will make Internet access more affordable for rural communities and reduce costs to citizens by reducing operating costs for ISPs. It will also reduce the traffic load on national Internet providers.

· We would need to form a team led by DAS to develop the network design and management approach, and to develop a cost model for implementation. After determining NOC staffing requirements, we would need to create a proposal for acquiring staff.

· Implement Statewide Integrated Video Conferencing. As directed by SB994, DAS must promote the use of video conferencing technology in lieu of travel. To that end, DAS is currently developing partnerships between agencies and DAS that result in the expansion of video conferencing facilities and services throughout the state. The team believes that in addition to the tangible policy, service level and cost benefits such a strategy will drive, that similar to fast packet deployment, State sponsored video deployment will drive more technology infrastructure into rural Oregon. There will be reduced in-state travel costs as well as timely training and communications.

· Pilot testing is currently underway with the Department of Corrections. Initial capital investment and operating budgets for this strategy are being developed.

· The availability of agency funds may be a barrier. Reaching consensus among public sector organizations (state agencies, OSSHE, OPEN, etc.) regarding technology standards, architecture and roles of organizations could prove to be the most serious barrier. Finally, the ability to effectively use this technology anywhere in the state could be a barrier.

· DAS is currently developing a work plan for deploying video services in support of government agencies.

Tactic #2: Coordinate internal efforts to share and coordinate data.

· Initiative 1: State, county, and city government agencies should provide 24 hour a day, seven day a week "one stop" access to all government information and services, presenting a single face to the public. Citizens often have trouble determining which agency, at which level of government, provides the information, forms, and services they need. Citizens generally do not know, and do not want to know, which level of government performs specific services or collects certain data. Government is generally thought of as a single entity fragmented into many bureaucracies for no obvious reason. Information is generally hard to find. This is often true within government agencies as well.

· A pilot project should be organized that would provide a "one stop government store" in a particular locale or an integrated website that would act as a virtual government store. The pilot project should start relatively small, with a few key government agencies, and grow as other government entities are added.

· Legislation should be enacted with appropriate funding incentives to require participation in an integrated information and services pilot project. An alternative would be to invite government entities to join a pilot project, with appropriate funding incentives provided by the legislature.

· An intergovernmental information services committee, or similar existing organization, should oversee the implementation of this pilot.

· Initiative 2: State agency information resource management initiatives should be available through Internet access. State agencies complete biennial information resource management (IRM) plans. These detail the technology initiatives that the agencies will undertake in the future. There is limited visibility to these initiatives on the part of the public, private industry or other government agencies. Most agencies submit their plans in paper form without an electronic copy. Opportunities to collaborate or to develop communities of interest are lost. This is an opportunity to take work that is already being done and leverage the information being generated.

· State agency information resource management initiatives should be collected in electronic form. The Oregon Online web page should be expanded to include these initiatives to promote search and access by other state agencies, local governments, businesses, and the public.

· In the short term, current plans could be collected from agencies in an electronic form, edited by temporary help, and made available through electronic means such as Oregon Online. In the long term, some work would have to be done to improve consistency, comparability, and timeliness of the information. As information systems projects go, this is not a large effort.

· The Department of Administrative Services should be tasked with providing electronic inquiry and access to agency biennial information resource management initiatives.

· Initiative 3: Government data, unless specifically excluded in law, should be available and accessible to other state and local governments. Access development, such as extract programs, and maintenance, if any, should be at cost. Ongoing transactions should be free. While many agencies already provide access to public data to government agencies, some do not because of the lack of resources, confusion over confidentiality requirements, or no clear direction in law. Oregon government collects and maintains a vast resource of data for and about its citizens, itself, and the community. Departments and agencies do not have clear direction in law to make their data available to other agencies on an as needed basis. Sometimes confidentiality issues are cited as reasons to prevent sharing of databases or files. Sometimes resource constraints prevent sharin