section 1: project overview

Appalachian Regional CommissionVideoconferencing Survey

Final Report

December 2000

133 Front StreetVestal, NY 13850TEL 607 754-5037FAX 607 754-6975

[email protected]

Appalachian Regional Commission Videoconferencing Survey

© 2000 The Myers Group ▪ 607-754-5037 ▪ [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Project Overview.................................................................................................. 1A. Study Background ........................................................................................................ 1B. The Digital Divide ......................................................................................................... 2C. The ARC ...................................................................................................................... 3D. Videoconferencing Basics ............................................................................................ 3

Section 2: Project Summary and Methodology ..................................................................... 7A. Phase I: Discovery Period ............................................................................................ 7B. Phase II: Development Period ...................................................................................... 9

1. Local Development District Surveys.......................................................................... 92. Public Videoconferencing Site Survey....................................................................... 9

C. Phase III: Data Collection and Mapping ..................................................................... 11D. Phase IV: Analysis ..................................................................................................... 12E. Phase V: Plan, Recommendations and Documentation.............................................. 13

Section 3: Findings ............................................................................................................. 14A. Public Videoconferencing Sites .................................................................................. 14

1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 142. Technology ............................................................................................................. 193. General and Facility Information ............................................................................. 424. Key Observations Regarding Public Site Information .............................................. 51

B. Local Development Districts ....................................................................................... 521. Introduction............................................................................................................. 522. Local Development District Information................................................................... 533. LDDs with In-House Videoconferencing Systems ................................................... 554. LDDs that use Videoconferencing Elsewhere ......................................................... 575. LDDs that do not use Videoconferencing ................................................................ 586. Key Observations.................................................................................................... 60

Section 4 - Analysis ............................................................................................................ 62A. Appalachia, Videoconferencing and the Digital Divide ................................................ 62B. Access to Videoconferencing in Distressed Counties ................................................. 64

2. Square Mileage Analysis........................................................................................ 68C. Access to Videoconferencing by Population............................................................... 73D. Organization Types .................................................................................................... 75E. Areas Where Videoconferencing Does Not Exist........................................................ 77F. Local Development Districts ....................................................................................... 79

Section 5 - Recommendations............................................................................................ 82A. Organization and Communication Among LDDs and the ARC ................................... 84B. Capitalizing on Competition and New Developments ................................................. 86C. Promotion of H.320 Equipment as a Standard for Interconnection ............................. 90D. Targeting Videoconferencing Development................................................................ 93



TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Percentage of Total Sites in each ARC State ......................................................................15Figure 2 - Concentration of Sites within each State..............................................................................16Figure 3 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code ......................................17Figure 4 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by County..........................................18Figure 5 - Public Videoconferencing Site System Types......................................................................20Figure 6 – Map of Videoconferencing System Types by Zip Code ......................................................21Figure 7 - Public Videoconferencing Site Equipment Manufacturers ...................................................22Figure 8 - Switched Network Connection for Videoconferencing .........................................................23Figure 9 - Dedicated Network Connection for Videoconferencing........................................................23Figure 10 - Hybrid Switched/Dedicated Connection for Videoconferencing.........................................24Figure 11 - Public Videoconferencing Site Connection Capabilities.....................................................25Figure 12 - Technical Standards: System Interoperability ....................................................................26Figure 13 – Map of H.320 Capability of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code.....27Figure 14 - Summary of Videoconferencing Transmission Technologies ............................................28Figure 15 - Network Capabilities of Public Videoconferencing Sites in the Appalachian Region ........29Figure 16 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Capabilities..........................................................31Figure 17 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Methods ..............................................................32Figure 18 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites with Bridging Capabilities by Zip Code..........................33Figure 19 - Public Videoconferencing Site Media.................................................................................34Figure 20 - Public Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds........................................................37Figure 21 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds by Zip Code .................................38Figure 22 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (T-1).............................................39Figure 23 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (Broadband Fiber) .......................40Figure 24 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (ISDN)..........................................41Figure 25 - Public Videoconferencing Site Organization Types ...........................................................43Figure 26 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites by Organization Type by Zip Code................................45Figure 27 – Map of Health Videoconferencing Sites by Zip Code........................................................46Figure 28 – Map of Government/Public/Non-Profit Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip

Code.............................................................................................................................................47Figure 29 – Map of Education Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code ...................48Figure 30 – Map of Business Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code.....................49Figure 31 - LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities..................................................................................53Figure 32 – Map of LDD Videoconferencing Use in the ARC Region by County.................................54Figure 33 - LDD In-House Frequency of Use .......................................................................................55Figure 34 - LDD In-House Primary System Uses.................................................................................56Figure 35 - LDD In-House Equipment Manufacturers ..........................................................................57Figure 36 - LDD Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere .........................................................57Figure 37 - LDD Frequency of Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere ...................................58Figure 38 - LDD Reasons for Not Using Videoconferencing ................................................................59Figure 39 - LDD (non-using) Knowledge Level of Videoconferencing..................................................59Figure 40 - LDD (non-using) Potential of Using Videoconferencing.....................................................60Figure 41- Comparison of Sites per County and Distressed Counties .................................................65Figure 42 - Site Distribution Among Populations of Distressed and Non-Distressed Counties ...........68Figure 43 - Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site......................................................................71



Figure 44 - Percentage Increase in Distressed Counties over Non-Distressed Counties (SquareMileage and Population)...............................................................................................................72

Figure 45 - Comparison of the average number of people per videoconferencing site based on countypopulation categories ...................................................................................................................73

Figure 46 - Comparison of the average square mileage per videoconferencing site based on countypopulation categories ...................................................................................................................74

Figure 47 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Distressed Counties.....................76Figure 48 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Non-Distressed Counties.............76Figure 49 - Percentage of Counties with No Videoconferencing Sites.................................................77Figure 50 - Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing .................................................78Figure 51 - Percentage of Population without Videoconferencing Facilities in their County ................79Figure 52 – Patterns of Videoconferencing Use in Among LDDs by Availability of Videoconferencing

in the LDD Territory ......................................................................................................................80Figure 53 – Average Sites per County vs. Patterns of Use ..................................................................81


© 2000 The Myers Group ▪ 607-754-5037 ▪ [email protected] 1

Section 1: Project Overview

A. Study BackgroundIn August of 1998 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) agreed to support aproposal from the Development District Association of Appalachia (DDAA) to fund a numberof activities to assist the Association’s 71 component Local Development Districts (LDD's).The activities were designed to help the LDDs in the development of enhancedtelecommunication applications/technologies, become more capable in the use of thesetechnologies and assist in the provision of technical services in telecommunications. TheDDAA proposal included the provision of comprehensive technical assistance on the use ofvarious types of telecommunication services, the use of the Internet and development ofindividual Web sites.

The proposal also included the support of a demonstration program by some of the LDDs inthe use of their existing videoconferencing equipment to address regional informationgathering, receiving and transmitting training programs, and other collaborative effortsbetween LDDs, State ARC offices, and the ARC headquarters in Washington, DC.

The purpose in conducting this study is to further the DDAA’s overall project by identifyingpublicly accessible, interactive video teleconferencing sites in the region that would permitthe 71 LDDs, State ARC personnel, and the ARC headquarters facility to jointly participatein regional videoconferencing using modern telecommunications technologies and facilitatedvideoconferencing techniques.

The rationale for this survey is to identify facilities in the region that can be used by theregion's 71 LDDs, as well as citizens groups, and organizations to originate, and participatein videoconferencing opportunities of all types. The ARC and the DDAA are cognizant of thefact that the government, business, education, and medical sectors are all in need of usingvideoconferencing that is both economically and practically feasible to use. The DDAA andARC are interested in answering four central research questions:

1. Are there adequate numbers of geographically dispersed videoconferencing sites in theregion to permit easy access to routine "point-to-point" videoconferencing?

2. Is there adequate "Bridging" equipment - equipment that permits more than 2 sites to beable to participate in simultaneously in joint videoconferencing?

3. Are there significant gaps in the dispersion of videoconferencing sites?



4. Are there significant issues of interoperability between systems that exist throughout theregion that will render a number of sites unusable for major regional videoconferencingpurposes?

5. Is it practical for all 71 LDDs to be able to communicate with each other on a routinebasis using videoconferencing equipment?

6. Are there significant challenges that need to be overcome in order to set up such anetwork? Challenges could include problems of interoperability between existingsystems, practices, equipment standards, and lack of telecommunication infrastructure.

7. Is it economically practical to set up such a network?

B. The Digital DivideThe availability of videoconferencing in the most rural reaches of the United States has beenbrought to the forefront in recent years as the deployment of technology in well-to-do urbanand suburban areas has out-paced technology growth in rural regions. This concept hasbeen addressed more formally as a social and economic issue in the federal government’srecent report on the “Digital Divide”, which has brought into light inequities in regard toaccess to the Internet and other information technologies that are crucial to the economicgrowth and personal advancement of geographic regions.

The Clinton Administration has defined the Digital Divide in this way:

"In just about every country, a certain percentage of people has the bestinformation technology that society has to offer. These people have themost powerful computers, the best telephone service and fastest Internetservice, as well as a wealth of content and training relevant to their lives.”Another percentage of people exist who “…don't have access to thenewest or best computers, the most reliable telephone service or thefastest or most convenient Internet services. The difference betweenthese two groups of people is what we call the Digital Divide."1

To live in the rural hills and mountains of Appalachia is to be on the less fortunate side of thedivide. This means that there is less opportunity to take part in the new information-basedeconomy, and to take part in the education, training, and communications opportunities thatare available through modern telecommunications facilities. Videoconferencing is onetechnology that could help bridge this gap.

1 http://www.digitaldivide.gov. Published on the World Wide Web.



The full implications of the Digital Divide in Appalachia and other rural regions throughoutthe United States is unknown. Information is spotty, at best, and difficult to collect on a widescale basis. The Appalachian Regional Commission Videoconferencing Survey is an efforton the part of the ARC to examine this one component of the issue, assess the impact andsignificance in Appalachia and implement a strategy for regional videoconferencingthroughout the 13-state region.

C. The ARCThe Appalachian Regional Commission is a federal/state partnership established by theAppalachian Regional Development Act to promote economic and social development of theAppalachian Region. The Act defines the Region as 406 counties comprising all of WestVirginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia - an area of 195,000square miles and about 21 million people. To promote local planning and implementation ofARC initiatives, the Commission supports 71 Local Development Districts (LDDs) comprisedof groups of counties within each of the 13 states. The Commission has 14 members: the 13Governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a Federal Co-chairman, who is appointed bythe President.

For over 35 years, the Commission has assisted a wide range of programs in the Region,including highway corridors; community water and sewer facilities and other physicalinfrastructure; health, education, and human resource development; economic developmentprograms, local capacity building and leadership development. Recent analysis of the 406counties within the ARC region, based on the Commission's 1998 definitions of economicdevelopment levels, indicate that 108 counties were designated distressed because of highrates of poverty and unemployment and low rates of per capita market income compared tonational averages; 264 counties were designated transitional, with higher than average ratesof poverty and unemployment rates and lower per capita market income; 24 counties havenearly achieved parity with national socioeconomic norms and are now designated ascompetitive, and 10 counties have reached or exceeded national norms and are nowdesignated as attainment counties. In keeping with changing regional conditions, theCommission periodically alters its specific program policies to address current developmentpriorities. ARC also continuously evaluates its programs and policies to assure that itsconstituents needs are satisfied in the most optimum way possible.

D. Videoconferencing Basics

For the purposes of this study, videoconferencing is defined as the commonly acceptedmethods of communication via two-way, interactive video in which a participant at onegeographically distinct location can view a video image of, and speak with, at least one otherparticipant at a different geographic location (and visa versa). While the quality of video andaudio may vary widely from one type of videoconferencing session to another, when



engaged in a videoconferencing session, all participants must be experiencing an equivalentlevel of communication which includes live interactive video and real-time interactive audiocommunication (with no more than a few seconds of delay from the time of the origination ofthe signals to the time of the receipt of the signals at the far end).

Several types of video communication were considered to be outside the scope of thisanalysis. For example, some forms of satellite video communication or broadcast video, itcan be argued, can be interactive if persons viewing the program can interact via someother means (such as a telephone or fax machine). For the purposes of this study, thesetypes of conferencing arrangements were not considered.

Videoconferencing, in this report, is a collection of technologies that form the foundation fora wide variety of applications. The term videoconferencing refers to these applications and,to a lesser degree, the technologies that support them.2 In a videoconference, the pictureand sound travel from place to place as computer data or as analog video signals.

Analog Videoconferencing

Analog videoconferencing technology is typically associated with an “older” form ofinteractive video, however, many analog videoconferencing networks still exist and provideextremely good quality video and audio. An analog video typically operates on a closed-circuit basis among several sites. In other words, a site employing analog interactive videotechnology can not “dial-up” another location unless it is one of the sites on the “closed-circuit” network.

An analog videoconferencing network provides full-motion video signals using the standardfor broadcast television originally developed in 1948 (NTSC). This is the standard that allstandard (non-HDTV) televisions in the United States use. Because NTSC video signalsconsume so much bandwidth, analog interactive video is typically provided via dedicatedcoaxial or fiber optic cable. Generally these type of connections are costly. Each individualvideo signal and audio signal at the point of origination is modulated onto the cable and thendemodulated at the other end to be viewed on a television monitor.

Digital Videoconferencing

In digital videoconferencing systems, captured video and audio signals are converted tocomputer data, processed by computer circuits (or coded), routed through phone lines madefor computer data, and finally converted back (decoded) into video and audio. Since videocontains too much information to be sent through traditional types of dial-up telephone lines,video signals must be converted into computer data and converted back into a video signalagain at the other end.



The flood of raw data generated by live video and audio could fill hundreds of digital phonelines to capacity. Therefore, digital videoconferencing relies on compression to fit all thatdata onto a single telecommunications circuit. The device that performs the compression(and decompression) is called a CODEC (which is a concatenation of the words COder andDECoder). Video, audio and data all connect into the codec, which transmits a single, digitalsignal over the network to the remote location(s). The network consists of digital lines thatare similar to, but different from, regular telephone lines.

The growing worldwide network of dial-up digital phone lines provides this compressedaudio and video a way to move from place to place. The two most common kinds of dial-updigital services are called ISDN BRI (Integrated Services Digital Network, Basic RateInterface) and switched-56. ISDN BRI provides two data channels, each with a capacity of64kbps (for a total of 128Kbs). Switched-56 has a pair of 56-kpbs data channels instead.Higher capacity is also available in a different kind of line, such as ISDN PRI (Primary RateInterface). This offers up to twenty-three (23) 64kbps channels (plus one 64Kbs channel forsignaling) that can be used to gain greater capacities.

Often, a single codec can accept multiple ISDN BRI lines or multiple switched 56 lines whichimproves the overall bandwidth that is used (i.e. three (3) BRI lines @ 128Kbs = 384Kbs)and thus improves the quality of the video and audio.

Many systems use a common set of standard techniques, so they can communicate withsystems made by other manufacturers. The standards include H.320, H.323, H.261, T.120and many others.

The most common standard is H.320, which covers a suite of standards forvideoconferencing over ISDN, switched-56, and other kinds of digital phone lines. It dealswith data rates between 56 kbps and 2048 kbps. T.120 is a standard that compliments theH.320 standard allowing for computer-based meeting tools - such as computerized slidedisplays, WindowsTM application sharing, and digital whiteboards. These tools work bysending and receiving data through the same line that carries the H.320 video and audiosignals.

Another standard gaining in significance is H.323, which covers video communication via IP(Internet Protocol). The H.323 suite of standards allows for interactive video communicationover any variety of data network that communicates via IP and, of course, the internet.

Several proprietary standards also exist in which only devices of the same manufacturer(and in some cases model) can communicate with one another. One example includes

2 Trowt-Bayard, Toby and Wilcox, Jim. "Videoconferencing and Interactive Multimedia: The Whole Picture," Flatiron Publishing.1997.



Tektronix J-Series equipment that operates using a protocol called Motion JPEG. Using thisequipment, all sites must be equipped with J-Series codecs to communicate with oneanother.

Multi-point videoconferences (3 or more videoconferencing systems participating together ina session) are possible with the use of a videoconferencing bridge. A bridge works by eitherswitching the video and audio from one site to another or by dividing the participants’television screens into four quadrants and placing the video image of each participant in oneof the quadrants of the screen.

Television monitors are used for viewing the distant site(s) as well as any documents orvideo being exchanged. Other devices, such as a document camera, can be used to sharegraphics, and other peripherals such as laptop computers can be connected to the systemas well. The local and distant participants view these simultaneously on the monitors.

Videoconferencing systems are available in a variety of formats. A set-top system allows acamera to mount directly on top of a television monitor. A roll-about system is the same as aset-top system, except that the television monitor is integrated with the entire system on amoveable cart - allowing for its use in different locations. A desktop system integrated with apersonal computer relies on the hardware and software of the PC for videoconferencing.Finally, some locations maintain dedicated videoconferencing rooms specifically forvideoconferencing and contain permanently mounted equipment. These system types arefurther discussed in Section 3 of this document.

Videoconferencing systems usually have one or a combination of the following threeconnection capabilities. A switched connection can dial-up any other compatiblevideoconferencing system and uses the public network via ISDN, switched 56, an internetconnection, or other method. A dedicated connection can only interact with other sites on aparticular network and connects using one of a host of various connections (i.e. dedicated56Kbs, broadband fiber, T-1, DS-3, coaxial cable, Virtual Private Network, ATM, frame relay,or a private IP network). A broadcast-type system, such as a satellite-based, broadcast, orcable television system only has the capability to receive (or send) video signals from theoutside and to interact requires the use of a telephone, fax machine or other device. Asstated earlier, these types of systems were excluded from this study.



Section 2: Project Summary and Methodology

This section provides a detailed summary of the work completed on this project. A five-phase plan was developed and carried out to collect, document and analyze informationrelated to videoconferencing in the Appalachian Region.

Throughout the entire project, a regular reporting schedule was followed to report the study'sprogress. Feedback was sought from the ARC during these interactions regarding thequality and completeness of the information obtained. The videoconferencing facilitieslocated in the Myers Group offices were used to regularly communicate with the ARC andproject partners.

Written "Status Reports" were submitted to the ARC in August, September, December, andMarch, and additional regular updates were provided through e-mails, faxes, phone calls,and videoconferences. Circumstances arising during the data collection and mappingphases pushed the project off of the original proposed schedule. However, the additionaltime used to verify data and emphasize thoroughness and quality have resulted in a morecomplete and accurate study.

The information presented below details the process and resulting action steps that weretaken in the videoconferencing analysis.

A. Phase I: Discovery PeriodThe goal of this phase was to gather the essential information that formed the platform forthe study. This research helped to define the information collected in the survey instruments(created in the Development Phase) and helped generate important leads (pursued in theData Collection Phase). Finally, the information gathered helped to further define the studyand thus helped to ensure that the information collected was relevant and valuable to theARC.

The following steps were completed in gathering information during the Discovery Period:

• Review of Myers Group Relevant Files and Reports − The Myers Group has conductednumerous videoconferencing and distance learning research studies in the AppalachianRegion. A review of existing archives was completed which produced some initialinvestigative information.

• Review ARC Project Files − The Myers Group received information from the ARCconcerning relevant initiatives in the region.



• Key State-Level Contacts − The Myers Group was provided with listings of criticalstakeholders from the ARC that were asked to provide input into the project in the DataCollection Phase.

• Internet Searches − Broad WWW internet searches were carried-out as an initialsecondary research step to collect background information and identify other sources ofinformation.

• Review of Existing Videoconferencing Directories − Another secondary research activityincluded a review of existing videoconferencing directories available on-line,commercially or through videoconferencing service providers. An attempt to verify theaccuracy of all secondary research information was completed via primary researchmethods (i.e. telephone or written interviews).

• Interview ARC Officials, LDD Staff and Key Contacts − The Myers Group completedinterviews of appropriate representatives from identified project partner groups to seekinput on the type of information to be collected, methods for data collection, othersources of information, etc.

• Identification of Potential Public Videoconferencing Facilities (Universities, CommercialSites, etc.) − Potential public videoconferencing sites including (but not limited to)universities, community colleges, schools, corporate service facilities, governmententities, hospitals, technical schools, libraries, etc. were identified and contactinformation collected for use in data collection.

• Survey/Interview of Industry Contacts − Contacts within the videoconferencing industrywere mined and contacted to identify potential public videoconferencing facilities andadditional leads.

This first pass "forecasted" the type of information that would be gathered during the datacollection phase. This forecasting provided a preview of the content, style, and amount ofrelated information already available. This information spanned a tremendous range; from aweb site simply stating that videoconferencing is available in Pittsburgh, PA to a web pageproviding numerous technical details and contact information about sites all over the world.This information was later used to create survey instruments in the Phase II: DevelopmentPeriod and helped to form the platform for the study as a whole.

This phase also marked the beginning of a "snowball effect" for the Data Collection Phase(Phase III). The Discovery Phase generated many important leads that were used duringData Collection. As these leads were pursued, more were generated.



B. Phase II: Development PeriodDuring this phase the critical infrastructure was established that enabled the collection ofrelevant and valuable information as articulated by the project partners in the DiscoveryPhase. During this phase, the survey and interview instruments were created to collect dataand database structures were established.

To capture and manage the collected information, a database was designed using MicrosoftAccess. Data entry forms were developed with input masks and drop down boxes designedto control error during the data entry process. A relational database design was selected toprovide the flexibility needed for data analysis in Phase V. Attachment A provides a sampleview of the data entry form.

Two sets of survey instruments were created: one set for the Local Development Districts(LDDs) and one set for information collection and verification of public videoconferencingsites. The content and the form of each survey were based on an assessment of theinformation gathered during Discovery. The goal was to design survey forms that conciselycaptured the information determined to be most critical to the study. The LDD surveys weredesigned to assess the current needs and capabilities of each LDD. The Public Site surveyswere designed to gather very specific contact, technical, and facility information that wouldpopulate the database.

1. Local Development District SurveysThe LDD surveys were designed as telephone surveys. Each survey was preceded by aletter to each LDD to introduce the project, introduce The Myers Group and to inform eachof the project partners of the goals, process and anticipated results of the project.

The introductory letter and LDD Telephone Survey are included as Attachments B and C,respectively.

The completion response target was 100% of the Local Development Districts. As with anymass data collection effort, a challenge arose in having all LDDs complete the survey.However, all 71 LDDs were interviewed and the results of the survey are provided in Section3 of this document.

2. Public Videoconferencing Site SurveySeveral methods were chosen to administer the Public Site Survey. The goal was to contactas many sites as possible, as quickly as possible to verify existing information and collectadditional information as appropriate. Based on an assessment of the data compiled duringthe Discovery Period, four (4) methods of executing the Public Site Survey were created:



1. Web Survey − A web site was designed with linked web pages including an onlinesurvey form and a description of the project and players. It was determined that webaccess to the survey was highly desirable for four reasons: 1) it made the survey easilyaccessible via a public medium (the internet); 2) respondents could access the survey ata time that was convenient for them; 3) it reduced the potential for data entry error (usersentered the data themselves); 4) it saved data entry time (data was imported directly intothe database). All potential respondents were encouraged to utilize the web page. TheURL of this web site was referenced on each of the other survey types described below.

2. E-mail Survey − An email survey was developed that was both text-based − to which arespondent could reply by using the reply feature − and included a hyperlink to the websurvey URL. This survey was sent to all contacts with known e-mail addresses.

3. Written Survey − A written survey was designed and mailed to those sites without e-mailaddresses but with complete mailing addresses. Each survey referenced the web pageURL and encouraged respondents to use the Internet as the mode of response.Separate written surveys were drafted for mass mailings to all higher educationinstitutions and hospitals within the Appalachian Region.

4. Telephone Survey − a survey was designed for the remaining sites which had no otherinformation available except for a phone number.

Each survey instrument was pre-tested on a small population of subjects to identify andcorrect survey flaws and awkward/unclear questions. The instruments were also forwardedto the ARC for review and comment. The instruments were then reworked prior to final datacollection.

The initial search for sites in the Discovery Period yielded a large amount of information.This data was filtered for regional appropriateness (only those sites within the ARC region),technical appropriateness (only two-way interactive video) and other factors which may havea bearing on the accuracy and relevance of the data. After filtering numerous listings, a totalof 1,800 entries were recorded in the database. After further data cleaning throughout theproject, the number of entries was reduced further to less than 1,400.

Prior to data collection, contact lists were prepared for each survey type. This involvedassessing the available contact information, determining the most appropriate survey type toadminister, and formatting the data appropriately to distribute each survey. The design ofthe existing database was altered to manage, record and track contact responsesthroughout the rest of the project.



The web survey can be viewed at http://www.myersgroup.com/survey. Samples of thewritten, phone, and e-mail survey are included as Attachment D. The data collected usingthese surveys is detailed in Phase III: Data Collection.

C. Phase III: Data Collection and MappingThe goal of this phase was to collect and compile all of the information specified for thestudy in an efficient and effective manner. The central objective was two-fold to verify and/orcorrect information compiled during Discovery and Development and to collect additionalinformation relevant to the project.

Many of the sites that passed the filtering processes completed during the DevelopmentPhase proved to have outdated or incomplete information. As a result, many initial surveyattempts resulted in returned surveys or failed responses. Also, approximately 425 siteswere eliminated due to the following reasons: initial contact information was incorrect andactual videoconferencing site fell outside of the ARC region; the site had no publicvideoconferencing facility available at that location; sites that initial research reported hadvideoconferencing in fact only had satellite transmission capability; no contact could bereached to verify the initial site listing. Any surveys returned electronically or via US mailwere tracked and held for follow-up attempts. Sites that were unreachable after all availableavenues for contact (email, us mail phone calls) were exhausted were removed from the list.

Surveys were submitted with information in varying levels of completeness. Typically, mostsites provided complete contact information. Often, however, the Technical or FacilityInformation sections were incomplete or questionable in their degree of accuracy. Forexample, several surveys were submitted by sites mistaking their satellite downlinkcapability for videoconferencing. Incomplete surveys were set aside for a follow-up phonecall or e-mail. Two attempts were made to research any missing information. Consequently,several site listings have incomplete Technical or Facility information. However, the ContactInformation, the most crucial piece of information for this project, is complete for nearly all1,375 remaining records.

These were the primary challenges encountered during data collection. As data wasreported, it was entered into the database. Once the bulk of the data was recorded, filterswere created to highlight remaining inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear information. Most ofthe inaccuracies fell under the Technical Information Section of the survey. Some sitescontacted The Myers Group for help in completing this section. The Myers Group alsocontacted many sites that submitted inaccurate information and corrected the database.

Filtering the data to eliminate errors resulted in a disappointingly low response rate. TheMyers Group was dissatisfied with the number of responses received and thought it wasnecessary to distribute another round of surveys. These surveys were sent to the additionalleads and contacts that were generated from the first phase of data collection.



One additional challenge resulted from the timeliness of many responses. A December 1999deadline was highlighted on each survey, but completed responses continue to arrive at TheMyers Group offices through July, 2000. The data that was collected was graphicallyrepresented on maps as well as in database form.

D. Phase IV: AnalysisThe goal of the Analysis Phase of the study was to process the raw information, gathered inthe Data Collection Phase, and transform it into meaningful information directly addressingthe stated goals of the study.

Significant emphasis was placed on crafting appropriate database queries and statisticalanalyses to represent the data in a manner that is meaningful to the project partners andspecific to the goals of the study. Queries and analyses were carried out individually for theLDD needs/requirements evaluation and the videoconferencing site surveys and cross-queries were generated so that relationships between LDD needs/requirements could becompared with videoconferencing site availability. Specifically, the following points wereexamined:

• Need/Requirements/Criteria for Videoconferencing in LDD sites − This analysis wasbased on the survey data collected from the LDDs. A full assessment of each LDD’scurrent videoconferencing capabilities, their need for videoconferencing, and thesuitability of this technology to meet current communication requirements was made.

• Identification of Significant Gaps in Videoconferencing Service Availability in the ARCRegion − Gaps in videoconferencing services were identified and representedgraphically in maps identifying potential users and existing services.

• Determine Interoperability Between Existing Videoconferencing Systems − Alldetailed technical information regarding standards (i.e. H.320 and H.323) andtechnology (i.e. RF, M-JPEG, MPEG, MPEG-2, ISDN) collected throughout the studywas compared. An “Interoperability Map” that graphically demonstrates which sitescan presently communicate was prepared. This information was used to formulate astrategy for interconnection in the Plan, Recommendations and Documentationphase of the study.

• Determination of the Practicality of Using Existing Videoconferencing Systems for the71 LDD's − This analysis was a culmination of many components of the study andprepared on a regional and individual basis for the LDDs.

• Identification of Challenges for Establishing a Network − Potential barriers andexisting challenges for establishing a network were documented. This information



was critical for the Plan, Recommendations and Documentation Phase of the studyin which methods for overcoming the challenges identified were proposed. Theconclusions drawn from this phase are detailed in Section 3: Data Summary of thisreport.

E. Phase V: Plan, Recommendations and DocumentationThe goal of this phase was to develop an overall plan for videoconferencing in theAppalachian Region including specific strategies for the LDD organizations.

This phase involved reviewing all previous work done on this project, devising a strategy forimproving videoconferencing access and generating detailed recommendations. Alsoprovided are details on videoconferencing access and costs for LDD sites and forinterconnection of other networks.

Results of Phase V are detailed in Section 5 “Recommendations" of this report.



Section 3: Findings

A. Public Videoconferencing Sites

1. Introduction

As stated earlier, one of the primary goals in conducting this study was to identify publiclyaccessible, interactive video teleconferencing sites in the region that will permit the LDDs,State ARC personnel, and the ARC headquarters facility to jointly participate in regionalvideoconferencing. It is expected that videoconferencing facilities can be used by theregion's 71 LDDs, as well as citizens groups, and organizations to originate, and participatein videoconferencing.

In this section, the information gathered about these publicly accessible is presented. Theinformation gathered on each site is in various levels of completeness. As much informationas possible for each site was recorded using the methods described in the previous section.Following these best efforts, some of the sites are extremely well documented, some aremoderately documented and still others are incomplete. This resulted from several factors,including the failure of the site to respond to the survey and the follow-up attempts, a lack ofknowledge on the part of the respondent concerning the technical aspects of the system,recent changes in technology or services at the site, etc. All information that was availablefrom each site at the time of data collection was recorded and is presented included in thissection.

The comprehensive survey of public sites examined a wide variety of system types andorganizations in all 13 states to ascertain the suitability of the respective site to participate invideoconferencing. Each site was asked to provide the following information applicable tothe site participating in regional videoconferencing:

• Location of site, to include county, city, ownership of site, and complete mailingaddress. Name of contact person, with telephone number, fax, email and web pageURL

• Availability of site to accommodate different types of original signal transmission overvarious types of high speed and wide band network services. Information includesspecific line speed particulars for sites, compression and standards capabilities,access to "Bridge" facilities, network interface flexibility, and potential systemupgrade capabilities.

• An analysis of what types of videoconferencing equipment components are at eachsite: including, name of equipment and model type, ancillary supporting servicessuch as computer access, fax, whiteboard, overhead camera, etc.



• Cost of use of site, if available and any special use conditions. The informationcontains times of day equipment is available, and days of the week, schedulingrequirements, seating capacity of facility, etc.

A total of 1,375 sites are included in this report. This does not imply that there are notadditional sites within the region. The sites included in this survey were found via theresearch methods described in this report, and the information included herein is basedon available survey information. With the cost of videoconferencing falling and theincreased availability of ISDN and internet access throughout the US and the ARCregion, it is not possible to capture every site that maintains interactive video capabilities.The data represents a best effort to gain a snap shot of a period of time in the 4th quarterof 1999 and 1st quarter of 2000. The information is dynamic as more sites implementvideoconferencing technology, some decommission it and still other upgrade existingfacilities.

2. Public Videoconferencing Site Information

The number of public videoconferencing sites within each state within the ARC region isreflected below. As expected, Pennsylvania has the overwhelming majority of public sites –this mostly due to the concentration of sites in the Pittsburgh area and the fact thatPennsylvania has the greatest number of total counties in the ARC region.

Sites by State

NY10%

KY5%

WV5%

TN5%

VA4%

OH3%

MD3%

NC3%

MS2%SC

1%

AL6%GA

8%

PA45%

Figure 1 - Percentage of Total Sites in each ARC State

Within each state in the ARC region only designated counties fall within the AppalachianRegion – this is true for all states except West Virginia. In the case of West Virginia, theentire state (all counties) fall within Appalachia. The distribution of Appalachian counties



varies widely across the states. For example, Pennsylvania contains 52 Appalachiancounties, whereas South Carolina contains only 6.

In an attempt to gain a more complete picture and gauge the concentration ofvideoconferencing sites within each state, a ratio of the number of sites vs. the number ofAppalachian counties in each state was developed. The three northern-most states (NewYork, Pennsylvania and Maryland) were shown to have a significantly higher concentrationof sites (3 to 4 times the concentration), when compared with the states with the nexthighest concentration (Georgia and South Carolina). The ratio of public videoconferencingsite to Appalachian county (by state) are presented in the chart below.

Concentration of sites

12

32 2

3

1 1 1 1 12

10

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

SC MS WV TN KY OH VA AL SC GA NY MD PAState

Rat

io =

site

s/co

untie

s

Figure 2 - Concentration of Sites within each State

The distribution of public videoconferencing sites is also plotted on Map 1:Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region (by zip code). Due to variances in street names,numbers, and other address features, zip codes were used to plot the sites. Each point onthe map represents a unique zip code, and each symbol depicts the number of sites withinthat zip code. The videoconferencing site data is also represented in Map 2:Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region (by County). These maps point out thedistribution and approximate geographic location of all 1,375 public videoconferencing siteswithin the ARC region. Each of these sites are characterized by different system types andmanufacturers, interconnection, media, and transmission speeds, and this information isdetailed in the following sections.



Figure 3 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code



Figure 4 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by County



2. Technology

2.1 System TypesVideoconferencing systems are available in a variety of formats. A set-top or roll-about system that works with a television set allows a camera to mount directly ontop of a television monitor. The monitor may sit on a moveable cart - allowing for itsuse in different locations.

A desktop system integrated with a personal computer relies on the hardware andsoftware of the PC for videoconferencing. A dedicated videoconferencing room isoften a custom-designed room with ancillary equipment for specific purposes(tracking cameras for teachers in distance learning environments, documentcameras, room control systems, VCRs, etc.).

These system types are found throughout the ARC region. Basurvey information, of 1,375 public sites, the majority of the sivideoconferencing type because the contact or individual comnot know this information or the survey was not completed (orentirety).

Although the primary system type found was Dedicated Video(16%), it is suspected that the overwhelming majority of the siare in fact either set-top/roll-about systems or desk-top systemfrom other data included for each record – including the equipvideoconferencing standards listed, the seating capacity of thspeeds, etc. Most of the sites that reported "Other", in fact, hasystems, and did not specify their primary system type.

Set-top system Desktop system integratedwith a PC

Dedicated VideoconferencingRoom

m 19

sed on availabletes list an "unknown"pleting the survey did not completed in its

conferencing Roomstes listed as unknowns. This can be inferred

ment manufacturer,e facility, transmissiond multiple types of



Public Videoconferencing System Types

unknown78%

Dedicated Room16%

Other1%

Desktop System2%

Set-Top or Roll-About3%

Figure 5 - Public Videoconferencing Site System Types

The distribution of sites is plotted on Map 3: Videoconferencing System Types (byzip code). Using the zip codes of each site proved the most accurate way of plottingthe collected data, due to variances in street names, numbers, and other addressfeatures. Each point on the map represents a unique zip code, and each symbolindicates that at least one videoconferencing system of that type is located withinthat zip code.



Figure 6 – Map of Videoconferencing System Types by Zip Code



2.2 System ManufacturersMany manufacturers produce videoconferencing systems. Some of the most popularequipment manufacturers include Intel, which focuses on desktop computerconferencing; PictureTel and VTEL, which offer a variety of products but concentrateon roll-about and set-top type systems. Tektronix and ADC Communicationsmanufacture broadband fiber and DS3 (high bandwidth) codecs targeted towardhigh-bandwidth networks.

Of the dozens of manufacturers of videoconferencing equipment, 7 primarymanufacturers were included in the chart below. Additional manufacturers (primarilywith fewer than 10 references) were grouped in the 'other' category of the chart.

Equipment Manufacturer

CLI2%

Intel2%

Other2%Unknown

45%

VTEL15%

Tektronix4%

PictureTel27%

Sony1%

ADC2%

Figure 7 - Public Videoconferencing Site Equipment Manufacturers

2.3 InterconnectivityVideoconferencing systems usually have one or a combination of the following threeconnection capabilities. A switched connection provides the videoconferencingsystem with the capability to dial-up any other compatible system regardless of thelocation and uses the public switched network via ISDN, switched 56, an internetconnection, or other method. The two systems communicating together can literallybe located anywhere in the world (Birmingham, Alabama and Sidney, Australia forexample), provided the two systems are compatible and operating according to thesame technical standards. Because the connections are typically established via thepublic switched telecommunications network, video compression must be used overnarrow bandwidth lines (i.e. ISDN lines at 384Kbs or lower). This degrades the videosignal, to some extent, based on the bandwidth available.



Unlike a switched connection, a dedicated connection can only interact with othersites on a particular network and connects using one of a host of differenttechnologies (i.e. dedicated 56Kbs, broadband fiber, T-1, DS-3, coaxial cable, VirtualPrivate Networks, ATM, frame relay, or a private IP network).

Typically, these dedicated networks are dedicated to a particular function (severalschool districts sharing courses via distance learning, hospitals operating a privatevideo network for telemedical applications). What these dedicated networks give upin their ability to connect only a limited number of sites, they typically make up for invideo and audio quality. Generally speaking, these networks employ high bandwidthnetwork connections via fiber optic cable and/or circuits. These networks usually arecapable of reproducing very high quality video and audio and often allow for manysites to participate together simultaneously.

Figure 8 - Switched Network Connection for Videoconferencing

Figure 9 - Dedicated Network Connection for Videoconferencing

Site CSite A

Site D

CODEC

Site B

CODEC

CODEC CODEC

Site A

CODEC CODEC

Site BPublicTelephoneNetwork



Some videoconferencing facilities have hybrid systems that operate with bothcapabilities (switched and dedicated). Often sites connected together on a closed-circuit (dedicated) system share a codec that has dial-out capabilities – in a mannersimilar to a printer being shared by a number of computers on a local area network.In this way, the dedicated sites can reap the benefits of both types of systems.

Figure 10 - Hybrid Switched/Dedicated Connection for Videoconferencing

Site CSite A

Site D

CODEC

Site B

CODEC

CODEC CODEC

Remote Site

GatewayCODEC

PublicTelephoneNetwork

CODEC



Broadcast-type systems, such as a satellite-based, broadcast, or cable televisionsystems only have the capability to receive (or send) video signals from the outsideand to interact requires the use of a telephone, fax machine or other device.Broadcast systems such as this were not included as part of the study.

The chart below reflects the distribution of the system types that are known in theAppalachian Region.

Connection Capabilities

Dial-Up Only54%

Unknown34%

Dedicated 'Closed Circuit Networks'

7%

Dedicated and Dial-up Capabilities

5%

Figure 11 - Public Videoconferencing Site Connection Capabilities

2.4 Videoconferencing Standards: Interoperability of Systems

Most videoconferencing systems subscribe to a common set of standard technicalspecifications, so they can communicate with systems made by other manufacturers.There are today several major standards that apply to business-qualityvideoconferencing. Some of the more predominant include H.320, H.323 and H.310.

H.320 has been by far the predominant standard to-date; it is used by 90% of theexisting business videoconferencing equipment and it is the standard for component-to-component communication in such videoconferencing equipment.

Another standard gaining in significance is H.323, which covers videocommunication via IP (Internet Protocol). The H.323 suite of standards allows forinteractive video communication over a variety of data network types thatcommunicate via IP (including ethernet local area and wide area networks and theinternet). While widely used in private networks, this standard will more than likelygain in significance for public use as standards for the internet evolve allowing forguaranteed video quality.



Another standard that is beginning to make substantial inroads is H.310. Thisstandard dictates the way in which the MPEG encoding schemes inter-operatetogether. MPEG and MPEG2 are encoding schemes often used on AsynchronousTransfer Mode (ATM) networks and is targeted for use for distance learning,telemedicine and other areas where high quality video is required.

Several proprietary standards also exist in which only devices of the samemanufacturer (and in some cases model) can communicate with one another. Oneexample includes Tektronix J-Series equipment that operates using a protocol calledMotion JPEG (M-JPEG). Using this equipment, all sites must be equipped with J-Series codecs connected to a central J-Series switch (DCC45) via a DS-3 circuit tocommunicate with one another.

Technical Standards: System Interoperability

Analog2%

H.3231%

H.32060%

MPEG-20%

Unknown33%

M-JPEG4%

Figure 12 - Technical Standards: System Interoperability

Although there is a large percentage of sites for which the technical standards arenot known, it can be inferred from other data that a good portion of these sites areH.320 compliant.

While very few (8 out of 1,375 identified sites) were listed as having H.323 compliantvideoconferencing equipment (operating via the internet and data networks), thismore than likely does not provide an accurate picture of the actual distribution of thisequipment. Because much of this gear is deployed in internal corporate networksand used in households for personal videoconferencing applications, it is notavailable for public use. Information regarding these systems would therefore nothave been recorded for this study and quite difficult to obtain.



Figure 13 – Map of H.320 Capability of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by ZipCode



Each technical standard, circuit type and technology for videoconferencing has its advantages and disadvantages as well as costdifferences. The table below describes some of the more common videoconferencing standards, applications and costs.

STANDARD TELECOMMEDIUM

TYPICALAPPLICATION

QUALITY COMPATABILITY ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COST

M-JPEGMPEG 2Analog (NTSC)

FIBERDS-3Coaxial Cable

Distance Learning

Telemedicine

Multi-siteInteractivePrograms

High Quality &Reliable

BroadcastTelevision Quality

Can only connect to othersites using the sametechnology on the samenetwork.

Typically used fordedicated networksconnecting several sites inthe same geographicregion

Extremely reliable andeasy to use

Can connect multiplesites

Connections with othersites limited only to thoseon the same network.

Flat rate ~$1,800 to3,000/mounlimited usage

H.320 ISDN orSwitched 56Via PublicSwitchedTelephoneNetwork

VideoconferenceMeetings,Training, VirtualField Trips, VideoArraignments

Good Quality Can connect with anyH.320 compatible systemworldwide

Universal connectivity

Uses existing publicnetwork with familiardialing scheme

Requires additionalequipment and servicesfor multi-pointvideoconferencing

Usage costs can add upquick with frequent,extended calls

Usage sensitive

Flat rate ~ $60 to180/mo based onbandwidth used

Usage$20-75/hr

H.323 Ethernet/IP Network

PersonalVideoconferencing via internet

Internal corporatevideoconferencing via datanetwork

Qualitydetermined bybandwidthavailable on thenetwork for videotransmission

Can connect with anyH.323 user connected vialocal IP network or via anInternet connection

Can turn almost anydesktop computer intoa videoconferencingsystem

Requires significantnetwork managementoversight to guaranteebandwidth

Can not guarantee qualityover Internet connections

Uses existingInternalcorporate datanetworks orInternetconnection

Figure 14 - Summary of Videoconferencing Transmission Technologies



Figure 15 - Network Capabilities of Public Videoconferencing Sites in the Appalachian Region

100

80

60

40

20

0

% of Sites with Both Dedicated (“Closed-circuit”)and Dial-up Capabilities

% of Sites Connected to a Dedicated “Closed-circuit”Network Only

% of Sites with Dial-up Capabilities

PA MS WV AL OH TN KY GA SC NC MD NY VA



2.5 BridgingBridging allows for three or more videoconferencing sites to communicatesimultaneously in a session together. Bridging can be achieved in a variety of waysdepending on the type of technology that is being used for videoconferencing. Someof the more popular forms of bridging are described below.

Bridging via H.320 and H.323 dial-up type systems is often achieved using a devicecalled a multipoint conferencing unit (MCU). In this scenario, separatevideoconferencing units typically “dial-in” to a MCU. MCUs have multiple ports – thenumber of ports determines how many outside systems can dial in. They also havevarying transmission speed capabilities – some can only operate at speeds of128Kbs, others can operate at higher speeds, such as 384Kbs.

Regardless, participants can only interact at the speed of the weakest link. Forexample, if one site dials the MCU at a speed of 384Kbs (high quality video) and twoothers dial at a speed of 128Kbs (low quality video), all sites will interact at the lowerquality 128Kbs rate.

How participants view one another is also a function of the capabilities of theparticular model of MCU that is being used. Some MCUs can automatically detectwhich site is speaking, keying in on audio signals, and will display the video image ofthat site for the other participants. This image will continue to be displayed untilanother site begins to speak – at which time the video image will change to that site,allowing that site then to “take the floor”.

Other MCUs have the capability to “quad-split” the screen (dividing the participants’individual television screens into four quadrants) and placing the video image of eachparticipant in one of the quadrants of the screen.

The diagram below depicts four video conferencing units bridged in avideoconferencing session via an MCU.

Bridging on a dedicated video conferencing network is typically achieved in adifferent way – usually via the use of scheduling software that runs on the network.

CODEC

Site D

MCU

Site C

CODEC

Site B

CODEC

Site A

CODEC



Through the use of this software, a network administrator can configure the networkto establish sessions between particular sites at particular times. The software, whenprogrammed with this information, then communicates with the network equipment atthe appropriate time to establish the sessions as programmed. This software can beweb-based and accessible from all locations or it may reside on a controlling networkswitch and accessible only through a hard-wired terminal. The diagram belowrepresents one way in which a dedicated network sites may be bridged and sessionsscheduled.

Throughout the ARC region, the various forms of bridging discussed above exist. Inthe survey, respondents were asked if bridging capabilities existed for their system orassociated network. The chart below summarizes the responses.

Bridging Capabilities

No58%

No Response18%

Yes22%

Don't Know2%

Figure 16 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Capabilities

SchedulingComputer

SITESITE

SITE

NetworkSwitch

TV

TV TV

TV

TV TV

TV

TV TV



In addition to indicating whether or not bridging exists, respondents were asked howbridging is achieved. For example, does the facility maintain an MCU on site or dothey use an MCU located elsewhere? Typically there are hourly usage chargesassociated with the use of an MCU located at a remote location. Many telephonecompanies and private telecommunications businesses maintain MCUs and makethem available to organizations that desire multi-point capabilities for scheduledmeetings, training sessions, interviews, etc. The companies that offer bridgingfacilities typically require reservations to be made ahead of time and charge anhourly rate and possibly a set-up charge.

It is important to note that unlike switched (dial-up) bridging systems, dedicatedvideoconferencing networks have bridging capabilities that can not be shared withanyone outside of their “closed-circuit” networks.

Methods in which organizations within the Appalachian Region establish bridged,multipoint capabilities are described in the chart below. The chart below only reflectsthose sites for which information existed (does not include those sites that did notrespond to the survey).

Bridging Method

Scheduling Computer31%

Don't Know4%

Network Software1%

No Response 2%

Own Bridge20%

Dialing-in42%

Figure 17 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Methods

A full listing of the bridging locations identified in Appalachia is provided in theappendices of this document.



Figure 18 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites with Bridging Capabilities by Zip Code



2.5 Videoconferencing CarriersThe telecommunications connections that allow the videoconferencing units tointercommunicate can be provisioned by a number of different providers. These maybe telephone companies, cable companies, internet providers or private customerwide area or local area networks. The service providers providing interconnectivitythroughout the ARC region are listed in the chart below.

Videoconferencing Carriers

Public Telephone Network

22%

Other0%

Cable1%

Private computer network

2%

Internet0%

Satellite0%Unknown

75% Private wireless network

0%

Figure 19 - Public Videoconferencing Site Media

While a large percentage of this information is unknown, it can be inferred from otherdata within each record that the vast majority of these sites employ the publictelephone network to establish telecommunications connectivity forvideoconferencing.

2.6 Transmission SpeedsWhile there are many different carriers that provide interconnectivity, there are evenmore types of telecommunications lines that are provided by the service providersthat are used for videoconferencing. Some of the more common types of circuits arediscussed below.

ISDN – Perhaps the most common kind of digital telecommunication line is calledISDN BRI (Integrated Services Digital Network, Basic Rate Interface). ISDN BRI is adial-up (switched) telecommunication service that can be ordered from a localtelephone company. While it is widely available in most urban and suburban areas, itmay or may not be available in rural locations. The technology provides two datachannels, each with a capacity of 64kbps (for a total of 128Kbs). Often, a singlecodec can accept multiple ISDN BRI lines which improves the overall bandwidth thatis used (i.e. three (3) BRI lines @ 128Kbs = 384Kbs) and thus improves the quality



of the video and audio. Generally speaking, modern videoconferencing units thatoperate on an ISDN line also operate using the H.320 standard. AppalachianRegion-wide, 26% of the total identified units employed ISDN connections. It issuspected that the majority of those sites for which the connection type wasunknown (52%) use ISDN as well.

Switched 56 – Switched 56 is an older technology that also offers dial-up (switched)connections similar to ISDN – but operates at the lesser transmission speed of56Kbs, instead of 128Kbs. Like ISDN, multiple switched 56 lines can be combined toimprove quality and systems using switched 56 typically operate on the H.320standard. This means that ISDN users can connect to videoconferencing systemsusing switched 56 and visa versa. As discussed earlier, the quality of the video andaudio during a session is determined by the lowest bandwidth user.

T-1 – A T-1 line consists of 24 individual channels each of which operates at 64Kbs.These channels can be combined together supporting data rates of roughly 1.5Mbs(24 channels @ 64Kbs = 1536Kbs). Each 64Kbit/second channel can be configuredto carry voice or data traffic. Many telephone companies allow purchasing of justsome of these individual channels, known as fractional T-1 access. T-1 lines aresometimes referred to as DS1 lines.

T-3 – A T-3 line (sometimes referred to as DS3) is a dedicated phone connectionsupporting data rates of about 43Mbps. A T-3 line actually consists of 672 individualchannels, each of which supports 64Kbs. T-3 lines are often used for dedicatedvideoconferencing and distance learning networks.

Frame Relay – Frame Relay is a technology used for connecting devices on a WideArea Network (WAN). Most telephone companies now provide Frame Relay servicefor customers who want connections at 56Kbs to T-1 speeds. This bandwidth isshared among many sites so the full bandwidth that the customer subscribes to maybe available all the time. In the U.S., Frame Relay is quite popular because it isrelatively inexpensive. However, it is being replaced in some areas by fastertechnologies, such as ATM.

ATM – Current implementations of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) support datatransfer rates of from 25 to 622Mbs (megabits per second). This compares to amaximum of 100Mbps for Ethernet, the current technology used for most local areanetworks (LANs). One of the advantages of ATM technology is that multiple types ofcommunications (voice, data and video) can be carried on an ATM network and thatbandwidth can be guaranteed for applications such as video to ensure stable andpredictable quality.



The Internet – H.323 compliant videoconferencing systems are designed to workwith Internet Protocol (IP). If connecting to the internet, users can benefit from a highspeed internet connections – the faster the connection, the better. Unfortunately, nomatter how fast a connection a site has, this bandwidth can not be guaranteed as thesignals traverse scores of switches and routers that make up the internet connectionto the remote site. As is the case with other telecommunications services, you areonly as fast as the weakest link in the connection. Depending on the location of theremote end and all of the equipment and services in between, you may haveacceptable quality video or poor quality. Standards bodies are currently working in anattempt to solve these problems.

Cable Modem – A cable modem is a device designed to operate over cable TV linesand offers speeds, usually to the internet, in the range of 5 to 10Mbs. Because thecoaxial cable used by cable TV provides much greater bandwidth than telephonelines, a cable modem can be used to achieve extremely fast access to the internet.The same issues related to the internet apply however.

DSL – Like a cable modem, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology offers highspeed connectivity, typically to the internet, at speeds in the range of 1 to 6Mbs.Unlike cable modems, however, DSL modems work on standard copper telephonelines. The service is typically offered by internet service providers (ISPs) andtelephone companies and often competes with cable modem services offered bycable television companies. The same issues related to the internet apply for DSLaccess to the internet.

Sites within the ARC region reported a wide range of technology types andtransmission speeds for videoconferencing. The speeds included in the chart on thefollowing page include 128kbps, 384kbps, ISDN, T-1, and Broadband Fiber. Otherreported speeds are included in the 'other' category and the remaining sites reported'unknown' transmission speeds.



Transmission Speeds

ISDN (Unspecified)14%

Broadband Fiber7%

T-19%

Other6%

ISDN (384Kbps)10%

ISDN (128Kbps)2%

Unknown52%

Figure 20 - Public Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds

The distribution of transmission speeds are represented on Map 6, 6B, 6C and 6D:Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (by zip code). Using the zip codes ofeach site proved the most accurate way of plotting the collected data, due tovariances in street names, numbers, and other address features. Each point on themap represents a unique zip code, and each symbol indicates that at least onevideoconferencing system with that transmission speed is located within therepresentative zip code.

Based on the data collected it is not possible to create a map that demonstrates all ofthe various types of circuits available across the region. This would require a surveyof all companies providing telecommunications services in Appalachia including localexchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, cable television companies,etc. With the increase of competition within this market in recent years, thisinformation is often considered to be strategically significant by these companies andthey are often reluctant to share such information in detail.



Figure 21 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds by Zip Code



Figure 22 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (T-1)



Figure 23 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (Broadband Fiber)



Figure 24 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (ISDN)



3. General and Facility Information

3.1 Organization TypeA diverse array of organizations, from institutions of higher education to stategovernmental agencies to small businesses, employ videoconferencing for a varietyof purposes. In this study, each of the 1,375 public videoconferencing sites foundwithin the ARC region was classified in 1 of 4 sectors/organization types. Thesesectors included:

• Government/Public/Non-Profit – including a range of local, regional, state andfederal government agencies; public service agencies such as policedepartments and courts; and miscellaneous not for profit organizations. TheLocal Development Districts with in-house videoconferencing capabilitieswere included in this category. Interactive video is used for a variety ofpurposes in this sector including distance training sessions, meetings andarraignments via videoconference.

• Health – This category includes hospitals, clinics and health administrationgroups associated with the medical community in the Appalachian Region.Videoconferencing is used for a variety of purposes including administrativemeetings, continuing medical education and telemedicine. For the purpose ofthis study, telemedicine includes the various forms of “dynamic imaging”involving the provision of interactive, two-way healthcare services viavideoconferencing. One way transmission, or “static imaging” technologies,such as the electronic transfer of radiological images, were not included.

• Business – This classification encompasses a wide range of privateindustries from small businesses to large corporations. All sites in thiscategory are for profit companies associated with the commercial sector. Themost frequent usage of videoconferencing in business is for meetings. Otheruses include training, recruitment and customer relations.

• Education – This sector includes k-12, vocational schools, communitycolleges, and all 2 and 4-year colleges and universities. This classificationincludes the myriad of distance learning networks and facilities that dot theAppalachian region. Distance education and course sharing are theprominent videoconferencing applications for these organizations.

Some videoconferencing sites spanned multiple categories. For example, teachinghospitals are associated with both the Health and Education sectors. In theseinstances, a judgement was made (on a case-by-case basis) and the organizationwas classified in either one sector or the other.



The vast majority of public sites that were identified were associated with education.The distribution of sites is reflected below:

Organization Type

Education68%

Government/Public/Non-profit

9%

Health11%

Business12%

Figure 25 - Public Videoconferencing Site Organization Types

The distribution of sites by sector are represented on the maps 7 - 7D. Using the zipcodes of each site proved the most accurate way of plotting the collected data, dueto variances in street names, numbers, and other address features. Each point onthe map represents a unique zip code, and each symbol indicates that at least onevideoconferencing system of that organization type is located within that zip code.

As demonstrated on the maps that follow, the distribution of sites varies according tosector. An initial evaluation of the data reveals the following:

Business Sector Videoconferencing Sites – These sites show grouping around theurban and more populated geographic regions. This is logical in that most of theseorganizations lease their videoconferencing facilities to individuals and organizationsfor profit and there are higher concentrations of these individuals and organizationsin urban areas.

Health Sector Videoconferencing – These sites appear to be grouped regionally. Itmay be that some of the larger regional medical organizations and health networkshave looked to videoconferencing as a communications solution among regionalsites.

Education Sector Videoconferencing – The videoconferencing sites associated withthe educational sector show a fairly even distribution across the region,corresponding to campus locations.



Government/Public/Non-Profit Sector Videoconferencing – While there are fewersites in this sector than the others, the distribution of sites in this category are alsofairly evenly spread. Alabama has many videoconferencing systems within countyoffices throughout the state that are reflected in the maps that follow.



Figure 26 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites by Organization Type by Zip Code



Figure 27 – Map of Health Videoconferencing Sites by Zip Code



Figure 28 – Map of Government/Public/Non-Profit Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Regionby Zip Code



Figure 29 – Map of Education Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code



Figure 30 – Map of Business Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code



3.2 Ancillary EquipmentEach videoconferencing site was asked to provide a list of equipment above andbeyond the actual videoconferencing system and codec in place within their facility.Listed equipment included document cameras, automatic tracking cameras, VCRs,Satellite Downlink capabilities, Computers with Internet access, Scan converters,telephones, fax machines, and photocopiers. A description of some of this ancillaryequipment is provided below.

Document Cameras – Includes eyeball cameras and “Elmo”-type cameras capableof zooming in and out on documents or small objects. Units are typically placed on aflat surface and often include a staging area (similar to an overhead projector) with acamera pointed downward at the stage. Document cameras are often equipped withauto and manual iris and focus controls and have staging areas that can be back-litto display slides.

Tracking Cameras – Some videoconferencing systems are equipped with camerasthat are capable of locking onto and following an individual as they move about theroom. These cameras are often used in distance education settings so thatinstructors may move freely about while teaching.

VCRs – For displaying videotapes or recording video on a videoconferencingsystem, some form of video playback/record device is necessary. The most commonis a VCR. Often facilities maintain two VCRs – one dedicated for playing tapes andanother dedicated for recording – so both functions may be used at the same time.

Computer – Systems are often capable of displaying computer screens via thevideoconferencing system. Typically, a scan converter is employed which translatesthe computer display (VGA) to video (NTSC) so that it may be displayed andtransmitted. If the computer is connected to the internet, then on-line information canbe displayed as well.

Auxiliary Inputs: Virtually all systems have auxiliary video and audio jacks that allowfor the connection of other video devices such as:

• Video disk players• Video microscopes/telescopes• Camcorders• CD players• Satellite Downlink feeds• Other



This information was tracked for use on a site-by-site basis and may be beneficial forthe publicly accessible database. Because this information is site specific, it is notsummarized here.

4. Key Observations Regarding Public Site Information

Several general themes emerged from a top level analysis of the public videoconferencingsite survey data. Each is identified below for further treatment in the Analysis andRecommendations sections of this report.

• There appears to be a concentration of public videoconferencing sites in thenorthern states of the Appalachian Regional Commission, includingPennsylvania, New York and Maryland. It should be noted that while efforts weremade to be as thorough as possible in the collection of data, it is possible thatinformation for these states was simply better documented and/or available andthus able to be recorded more thoroughly for these states than other states.

• The major gaps in public videoconferencing are in West Virginia and Tennessee.West Virginia in particular has a preponderance of counties, many of which aregrouped together, without videoconferencing capabilities.

• At least 60% of the public sites identified have the ability to dial-out to othervideoconferencing systems (switched connections) via the H.320 standard overthe public switched network. By far the most widely used standard in theAppalachian Region is H.320.

• The distribution of H.320 capable systems varies according to state. Somestates, such as Pennsylvania, have an extremely large percentage of H.320systems (almost all). Other states have much more of a variance of H.320 andother dedicated network standards in place.

• The distribution of sites by sector varies widely, with business sector sitesgrouped in urban locations, health sites grouped regionally and education andgovernment sites distributed evenly throughout the region.



B. Local Development Districts

1. IntroductionTo ensure that funds are used effectively and efficiently, and to strengthen localparticipation, ARC works with the states to support a network of multi-county planning anddevelopment organizations, or local development districts (LDDs), throughout the Region.The 71 LDDs cover all 406 counties in the ARC program. The LDDs' most important role isto identify priority needs of local communities. Based on these needs, the LDDs work withtheir board members and other local citizens to develop plans for their communities'economic development, to target and meet the most pressing needs, and to buildcommunity unity and leadership.3

A key component of the videoconferencing study included a collection of information fromthese project partner organizations concerning their attitudes toward videoconferencing,their perceived need for the technology and their current usage of this mode ofcommunication. This portion of the study was conducted in the initial stage (Discovery) ofthe project so the information would serve to guide the project as a whole. This activity wasused as a check to ensure that the data collection conducted in later stages of the projectwould be targeted appropriately to produce relevant and valuable information.

While information was solicited from a diverse array of organizations with interests in theproject, including various state organizations, Appalachian Regional Commission officials,university administrators and local government agencies, the primary focus of theassessment was on the Local Development Districts.

A two-step plan was carried-out to collect information from the LDDs. First, a series ofinterviews were completed in the Discovery Period with selected ARC and LDD personnel.The purpose of these interviews was to collect information to determine the mostappropriate method for data collection and shape the information sought in the LDD survey.

Based on this information, a telephone survey was developed which was administered to all71 LDDs (at a 100% completion rate). The survey evaluated each LDD's currentvideoconferencing capabilities, uses and needs, as well as the suitability of the technologyto meet current communication requirements. Separate questions were posed to thoseLDDs that had in-house videoconferencing units and those that did not.

3 http://www.arc.gov/partners/ldds/ldds.htm



2. Local Development District Information

The majority (77%) of the LDDs use videoconferencing technology at some level. 18% ofthe LDDs maintain their own, in-house systems, while 59% of the LDDs usevideoconferencing facilities located elsewhere. The publicly available systems used by thisgroup of LDDs were tracked and logged in the database for the public site portion of thestudy. 23% of the LDDs indicated that they do not use videoconferencing at all as a meansof communicating.

LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities

Use Videoconferencing

Elsewhere59% In-House

Videoconferencing18%

Do Not Use At All23%

Figure 31 - LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities

The distribution of LDD videoconferencing usage is plotted on Map 8: LDDVideoconferencing Use in the ARC Region (by county).



Figure 32 – Map of LDD Videoconferencing Use in the ARC Region by County



3. LDDs with In-House Videoconferencing Systems

LDDs with videoconferencing units installed within their organizations were asked severalquestions related to their use of the technology, the frequency with which they usevideoconferencing and the type of technology they have in place. The frequency ofvideoconferencing use among the LDDs is fairly typical of organizations that maintain onevideoconferencing unit in a single corporate site for communication to the outside world.

Usage tends to increase in organizations that maintain multiple videoconferencing units inmultiple sites for internal communications within the corporate unit. With 84% of the LDDsusing their videoconferencing units 5 or fewer times per month, it appears thatvideoconferencing has not been embraced as a critical means of communication withinthese LDDs, but rather meets specific communications requirements as needs arise.

LDD in-house frequency of use

6-10 times/month8%

11+ times/month8%

0-2 times/month23%

3-5 times/month61%

Figure 33 - LDD In-House Frequency of Use

The sample of LDDs that maintain in-house videoconferencing systems use the systems fora variety of purposes. Not surprisingly, the use of videoconferencing mirrored many of theday-to-day activities of the LDDs, with the most common use being for meetings andeconomic development planning activities. It is important to note that workshop/conferencesand training/education accounted for a significant percentage of the total system use (43%).

Generally speaking, the LDDs that use videoconferencing most frequently use thetechnology for multiple applications – spanning several of the categories defined in figure31, below. For example, all of the LDDs that use videoconferencing more than six (6) timesper month, use the technology for meetings and for various types of training programs.



Primary System Uses

Meetings and Planning

52%

Other5%

Workshops and Conferences

24%

Training and Education

19%

Figure 34 - LDD In-House Primary System Uses

85% of the LDDs with in-house systems indicated that they presently have procedures inplace for the public to use their videoconferencing system. Each LDD responded that it isonly necessary to call ahead of time to schedule use of their systems. Most did not have aset schedule of availability in place, but instead, will allow public use of the systemwhenever it is not being used by staff or scheduled by another user.

Of the 12 LDDs with known in-house videoconferencing systems, all (100%) maintain H.320compliant systems. As explained earlier, an H.320 system permits the dial-up of any otherH.320 system, regardless of manufacturer or transmission speed. One LDD was unsure ofthe system manufacturer or the transmission speed/type of their system – thus it was notpossible to determine whether this system was H.320 compliant. The remaining sitesindicated that their systems used ISDN connections of various speeds (from 128 Kbs to 384Kbs) with one LDD indicating that they connect via a T-1 circuit (1544 Kbs).



Equipment Manufacturers

PictureTel61%

VComm8%

GE8%

unknown8%

V-Tel15%

Figure 35 - LDD In-House Equipment Manufacturers

4. LDDs that use Videoconferencing Elsewhere

Several districts indicated that they do not maintain a videoconferencing system in theirorganization, however, have an occasional need for this capability and go elsewhere to useit. The majority of LDDs (27 of 42, or 64%) without in-house videoconferencing systems thatuse videoconferencing elsewhere reported that the primary reason for using it is for ARCtraining. It appears that the sessions offered by the ARC are a major driver forvideoconferencing use among the LDDs.

Primary use of other systems

ARC Training64%

Meetings31%

Seminars5%

Figure 36 - LDD Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere

This group of LDDs was also asked how often they use videoconferencing. Theoverwhelming response to this question (0-2 times per year) was reported by 30 (72%) of



the 42 qualifying LDDs. 9 (21%) reported using videoconferencing (3-10 times per year), 2(5%) reported using it (10 or more times per year), and only 1 (2%) did not respond.

Other System Frequency of Use

0-2 times/year72%

10+ times/year5%

unknown2%

3-10 times/year21%

Figure 37 - LDD Frequency of Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere

These LDDs were also asked if a fee was charged to use videoconferencing facilities whichthey employ for these sessions. The responses to this question varied widely from nominalroom fees of $50.00 up to $500.00 which included use of the facility all day and technicalsupport. Many LDDs were unsure if they were charged a fee to use a videoconferencingsystem. As the responses to this question were based on individual experiences, there isno fee comparison in this section.

5. LDDs that do not use Videoconferencing

The remaining LDDs in this study were found not to use videoconferencing at all. 16 LDDsfell into this category, and were asked their reasons for not using the technology. Only 25%of the respondents indicated that videoconferencing facilities and/or the telecommunicationstechnologies that support videoconferencing were unavailable in their geographic region.The remaining 75% indicated that they had no need for videoconferencing, the technologywas too challenging from a technical perspective or too expensive.



Reasons for not using a system

No Need43%

Too Challenging19%

Too Expensive13%

Not Available25%

Figure 38 - LDD Reasons for Not Using Videoconferencing

This group was then asked to classify their level of knowledge of videoconferencing. Of the16 LDDs that fell into this category, 0 (0%) reported "thorough knowledge"; 8 (49%) reported"some knowledge"; 6 (38%) reported "little knowledge"; 0 (0%) reported "no knowledge";and 2 (%) did not respond to this question.

Level of Knowledge

No Response13%

Some Knowledge49%

Little Knowledge38%

Figure 39 - LDD (non-using) Knowledge Level of Videoconferencing

These LDDs were also asked if they would use videoconferencing if it were made availableto them. Of the 16 LDDs, 8 (50%) answered that they would use videoconferencing; 4 (25%)said they would not; 3 (19%) said "possibly"; and 1 (6%) did not answer.



Would you use videoconferencing if available to you?

Maybe19%

No Response6%

Yes50%

No25%

Figure 40 - LDD (non-using) Potential of Using Videoconferencing

6. Key Observations

As with the public sites, several general themes emerged from a top level analysis of theLDD survey data. Each is identified below for further treatment in the Analysis andRecommendations sections of this report.

• Over ¾ (77%) of the LDDs in the Appalachian Region currently use videoconferencing.

• The majority (59%) of the LDDs do not have their own in-house videoconferencingsystems, but use public videoconferencing facilities located elsewhere – making theoutcome of the public videoconferencing site analysis important.

• Of the LDDs that do maintain their own videoconferencing systems, at least 60% useH.320 compliant systems.

• LDDs that do have videoconferencing facilities use them fairly regularly on an occasionaluse basis. 77% of the LDDs that have videoconferencing in-house indicated they use thesystems more than 3 times per month.

• The LDDs that use public videoconferencing facilities located elsewhere usevideoconferencing far less frequently with 72% indicating they use videoconferencing 1-2 times per year and 93% indicating they use it less than 10 times per year.

• Training and workshops offered by the Appalachian Regional Commission account for asignificant percentage of the usage of the LDD’s videoconferencing systems.



• Of the LDDs that do not currently use videoconferencing, 75% indicated reasons otherthan the unavailability of telecommunications and videoconferencing technology. Theknowledge and understanding of videoconferencing technology and applications islimited and may be due to a lack of exposure to the technology. Only one half of thisgroup indicated that they would use videoconferencing if given to them and available forfree.



Section 4 - Analysis

A. Appalachia, Videoconferencing and the Digital Divide

As we enter the 21st century, it is becoming clear that the nation and the world's economieswill be information-based economies. The explosive growth of the internet and othercommunications technologies clearly point to a future based upon information technologiesas the driving force behind any successful economic position in the 21st Century. In 1950,73% of US employees worked in production or manufacturing. Now, less than 15% of U.S.employees are involved in manufacturing processes. The U.S. Department of Laborestimates that at least 44% of all workers this year will be in information technology servicesindustries.

The ability of a region to compete economically will largely depend upon the ability of theregion to establish the critical infrastructure required for e-commerce and technology-mediated access to the rest of the world.

While this study examines only a narrow slice of one aspect of telecommunications services(videoconferencing) in Appalachia, it is illustrative of the challenges that lie ahead for theAppalachian Region as a whole in the new century. Traditionally, areas of high economicdistress have been deprived of many of the advancements that have taken place intelecommunications technology and infrastructure. Companies have focusedtelecommunications infrastructure development dollars in the high population urban areaswhere a better return on investment is likely.

From a historical perspective, technology developments like telephone services andtelevision broadcasting reached the most rural geographic regions last. Often governmentinitiatives and public-private sector agreements were required to extend services outwardinto the remote regions of the United States, to promote the concept of “universal service”. Arecognition of the critical value of some telecommunications services for the purposes ofsafety (i.e. universal telephone service and 911) or education (the federal E-rate discount fortelecommunications services for schools and libraries) persists today.

Despite best efforts, inequities exist and will always exist for rural areas wheretelecommunications is concerned. It is evident to one extent or another in virtually all partsof Appalachia and rural America. The Myers Group has conducted several other studies inwhich the lack of available telecommunications services has been cited as a deterrent todevelopment or has, at minimum, precluded certain classes of industry from developing.

In the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania, for example, the extremely poor coverage for cellulartelecommunications services was highly correlated with a general lack of understanding ofwireless services among residents. There was also indication of a general avoidance of the



area by travelers and truckers, who preferred to take longer routes around the region toremain in wireless contact with the rest of the world.4

The importance of telecommunications in economic development was also demonstrated ina recent survey of relocation and site selection consultants, who assist companies withidentifying suitable areas to locate operations.5 Telecommunications infrastructure andservice availability was cited as a critical need and essential factor in the evaluation of anarea for relocation. Survey respondents also indicated that they often assume thateconomically distressed rural locations do not have sufficient telecommunicationsinfrastructure available and thus are never considered in the evaluation process.

In Appalachia, like other parts of the country, the degree of economic distress of geographiclocations varies. Recent analysis of the 406 counties within the ARC region, based on theAppalachian Regional Commission's 1998 definitions of economic development levels,indicate that 108 counties are designated distressed because of high rates of poverty andunemployment and low rates of per capita market income compared to national averages.These distressed counties are dispersed unevenly throughout Appalachia, with some stateshaving no distressed counties and others having a large percentage. The table belowindicates the percentage of Appalachian Counties within each state that are designated asdistressed.

State Field Total ARCCounties in State

Total DistressedCounties

Percentage of DistressedCounties within Appalachian

Region

Alabama 37 3 8%

Georgia 37 1 3%

Kentucky 50 40 80%

Maryland 3 0 0%

Mississippi 22 13 59%

New York 14 0 0%

North Carolina 29 2 7%

Ohio 29 9 31%

4 Cellular Telecommunications Service Analysis: Northern Tier Regional Planning & DevelopmentCommission, May, 2000.5 Telecommunications Analysis, Southern Tier West Economic Planning & Development Board,August, 2000.



Pennsylvania 51 2 4%

South Carolina 6 0 0%

Tennessee 50 10 20%

Virginia 23 5 22%

West Virginia 55 26 47%

Total AppalachianRegion

406 111 27%

In this section, an examination of the level of access to videoconferencing in Appalachia ispresented from several perspectives. The concept of “access” to videoconferencing isdifficult to define because it is multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and dynamic.

• It is multi-faceted in that it can be examined from many different perspectives, such asthe perspective of regional populations (how many people can have access to a givenvideoconferencing site?), a geographic perspective (how easily can people reach agiven videoconferencing site?), etc.

• It is multi-dimensional in that the degree of access varies greatly. In one county theremay be one videoconferencing site for every 5000 people; in another, the ratio may beone videoconferencing site to every 50,000 people.

• It is dynamic in that the technologies are constantly evolving, creating new and cheaperalternatives for videoconferencing and allowing for the use of new modes ofcommunication that previously were unavailable for videoconferencing (such as theinternet and virtual private networks).

In this section, an attempt has been made to examine access to videoconferencing fromthese various perspectives. Areas of economic distress are central to the examinationpresented here. Where possible, comparisons have been made to illustrate differences andevaluate the degree of technological inequity within Appalachia.

B. Access to Videoconferencing in Distressed Counties

When examining the issue from a broad perspective, it is apparent that an inverserelationship exists between the relative concentration of distressed counties within eachstate and the relative concentration of videoconferencing sites.

The chart below demonstrates this relationship. The bars on the left-hand portion of thechart reflect the average number of videoconferencing sites per Appalachian-county by state



– providing a gage of the relative concentration of videoconferencing sites in each state. Thebars on the right-hand portion of the chart reflect the relative concentration of distressedAppalachian counties within each state, as reflected in the chart above.

States like Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania have a high concentration ofvideoconferencing sites, but very few or no distressed counties, while states like Kentucky,Mississippi and West Virginia have a very low concentration of video sites, but a very highconcentration of distressed counties.

Appalachian Regional CommissionAverage Number of Videoconferencing Sites per County

vs. Percentage of Distressed Counties within State

Georgia

Mississippi

Maryland

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

West Virginia

Kentucky

Alabama

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percentage of ARC CountiesConsidered Distressed in State

Average # of VideoconferencingSites per County

While this is helpful in gaining a broad view of the problem of access to videoconferencing inthe distressed counties, additional insight is needed to gain a fuller understanding of theintricacies of the access question. The following examines differences in videoconferencingaccess of the economically distressed Appalachian counties when compared with thosecounties that are not designated as distressed.

Figure 41- Comparison of Sites per County and Distressed Counties



1. Persons per Videoconferencing Site

One measure that can be used to examine access to videoconferencing is by specifying thenumber of persons per public videoconferencing site for a particular defined geographicregion. For this analysis, the 406 Appalachian counties and their associated populationswere used as a benchmark to determine the relative distribution of public videoconferencingsites per person living in Appalachia. Population estimates were obtained from thePopulation Estimates Program, Population Division, United States Census Bureau (releasedate: March 9, 2000).

The chart below represents the number of persons per videoconferencing site within theAppalachian region of each state for non-distressed counties (column 1) and distressedcounties (column 2). The third column is intended to demonstrate the relationship betweenthese two numbers by showing the percentage increase of persons to videoconferencingsites for distressed counties.

Note: Many of these percentages are negative numbers, indicating that there areactually more persons per site in non-distressed counties than in distressed counties inseveral states.

Perhaps contrary to what would be expected, many of the distressed counties have a betterperson to videoconferencing site ratio than non-distressed counties. The state-wideanalyses of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania all indicate that,in general, there are more people to videoconferencing sites in non-distressed counties inthese states than in the distressed counties. The trend is reversed in Tennessee (rathersignificantly), Virginia and West Virginia. Taken as a whole, the Appalachian region hasapproximately 15% more persons per site in distressed counties than in non-distressedcounties.

For example, in Jefferson County, Alabama (the greater Birmingham area) there were 17public videoconferencing sites identified – translating to 1 videoconferencing site per 38,672persons. If access is defined only from the perspective of the number of persons served bycounty (as presented in the chart above), it would follow that any county with a ratio lessthan 38,672 persons per 1 videoconferencing site would have better access thanBirmingham. However, more than 88% of the counties in Appalachia designated asdistressed have a county-wide population of less than 38,672.

While there may be an initial inclination to perceive that some distressed counties providegreater access to videoconferencing than non-distressed counties, it is important to placethe analysis within context. A more in-depth examination of the dynamics of theserelationships reveals that this is most probably not the case.



In the more populated urban areas of Appalachia (such as Knoxville, Pittsburgh, etc.), thereare more people (of course) and, in general, more videoconferencing sites to serve thispopulation. This ratio is one-dimensional, however, and becomes less meaningful when abroader definition of “access” is employed.

No one would deny that the level of access to videoconferencing facilities in Birmingham isat a minimum satisfactory – more than likely access would be described as quite good. Theanalysis highlights the need for a broader definition of access that takes into account thegeographic distribution and relative concentration of videoconferencing sites.

State Persons perVideoconferencing

Site (Non-distressedCounties)

Persons perVideoconferencing

Site (DistressedCounties)

Percentage Increase ofPersons per Site inDistressed vs. Non-distressed Counties

Alabama 35,055 12,178 -65%

Georgia 19,255 4,841 -75%

Kentucky 22,430 15,608 -30%

Maryland 6,343 N/A N/A

Mississippi 21,363 17,140 -20%

New York 7,823 N/A N/A

North Carolina 41,003 19,950** (-51%)

Ohio 33,315 24,853 -25%

Pennsylvania 9,199 8,448 -8%

South Carolina 62,165 N/A N/A

Tennessee 34,224 83,508 144%

Virginia 11,077 13,794 25%

West Virginia 23,511 36,521 55%

Total ARCRegion

15,995 18,393 15%

** In the two distressed counties of North Carolina, there are no (quantity of 0)videoconferencing sites. This figure represents the entire population of these counties.



*Note: South Carolina, New York, and Maryland have no Distressed Counties within theARC Region.

2. Square Mileage Analysis

To fail to account for the geographic concentration of videoconferencing facilities is to fail toaccount for the primary benefit of videoconferencing – to eliminate the need for travel and tobreak down the barriers of geography. If one has to travel several hours to reach avideoconferencing site to conduct business with an organization that is several hours away,then why use the technology? Why not meet face-to-face? In order for the true value ofvideoconferencing to be realized, the facilities to be used must be close-by.This is central to measuring the “divide” in access between economically distressed ruralareas and economically stable populated regions.

Figure 42 - Site Distribution Among Populations of Distressed and Non-Distressed CountiesM

aryl

and

New

Yor

k

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Geo

rgia

Penn

sylv

ania

Alab

ama

Virg

inia

Kent

ucky

Mis

siss

ippi

Tota

l AR

C R

egio

n

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ohi

o

Wes

t Virg

inia

Tenn

esse

e

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000Po

pula

tion

State

Persons per Videoconferencing Site

Legend Distressed Counties Non-Distressed Counties



In Appalachia, geography presents an even greater barrier to access than other areas of thecountry. The region is mountainous and rural with a great number of secondary roads. Alongwith the lack of telecommunications infrastructure, the region is lacking the transportationinfrastructure of other more urban areas. Additionally, weather is often inclement, withnorthern areas experiencing high lake effect snowfall and central areas experiencing icingconditions during winter months.

In an attempt to evaluate the relative dispersion of public videoconferencing sites andgeographic relationships, the square mileage of counties was used as a benchmarkmeasure. The analysis provides excellent insight to the geographic concentration of sites inAppalachia.

Square mileage readings of each of the 406 counties of Appalachia were taken andcompared with the number of videoconferencing sites within each county. Square mileagewas obtained from ArcView GIS, in standard geographic datasets provided byEnvironmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI ).

It is important to note that the analysis is conducted at the county level and therefore doesnot account for videoconferencing sites that may be near the border of an adjacent county.Thus this analysis does not provide the detail of Map 1 in this report which reflects sites byzip code – but rather reflects the less detailed view provided in Map 2 which reflects sites bycounty.

The chart below represents the relative concentration of videoconferencing sites usingsquare mileage per videoconferencing site as the basis for the analysis. The square milesper videoconferencing site for non-distressed counties (column 1) and distressed counties(column 2) are presented by state. The greater the number (of square miles per site), thegreater the geographic distance between sites – implying an inferior access tovideoconferencing.

The third column is intended to demonstrate the relationship in concentration ofvideoconferencing sites by showing the percentage increase of square miles tovideoconferencing sites for distressed counties over non-distressed counties. Note that allbut one of these percentages are positive numbers, indicating that there are more squaremiles per site (a low concentration of videoconferencing sites) in distressed counties than innon-distressed counties in virtually all states, with the exception of Georgia.



State Square Miles perVideoconferencing

Site (Non-distressedCounties)

Square Miles perVideoconferencing

Site (DistressedCounties)

Percentage Increase ofSquare Miles per Site in

Distressed vs. Non-distressed Counties

Alabama 311 435 40%

Georgia 104 94 -10%

Kentucky 209 265 27%

Maryland 44 N/A N/A

Mississippi 333 445 34%

New York 88 N/A N/A

North Carolina 319 851 167%

Ohio 286 361 26%

Pennsylvania 59 63 7%

South Carolina 249 N/A N/A

Tennessee 249 1760 607%

Virginia 204 215 5%

West Virginia 228 774 239%

Total ARCRegion

124 345 178%

** In the two distressed counties of North Carolina, there are no (quantity of 0)videoconferencing sites. This figure represents the entire square mileage of thesecounties.

Using geography as the benchmark for measurement, the differences are startling. Theanalysis clearly demonstrates the lack of access to videoconferencing in the less populatedand disadvantaged regions of Appalachia when examined on the basis of geography.Appalachian Region-wide, there are approximately 178% more square miles pervideoconferencing site in distressed areas than in non-distressed areas.

In short, the videoconferencing sites that are available in distressed counties are few and farbetween – dispersed thinly over a significant geographic expanse. While the population inmany of these remote regions is small, it is a population of individuals who are denied



access to the benefits of videoconferencing. The reason they do not have accesscorresponds to where they live and the relative economic condition of their county.

The graph below provides a comparison of the results of the previous two analyses on a

state-by-state basis. It graphically demonstrates the percentage increase of distressed overnon-distressed counties in both number of persons per site and square miles per site asreflected in the previous charts.

Using sites per person as a benchmark, there may be those that would question the dividebetween the have and have-nots in rural and urban settings where videoconferencing isconcerned. Indeed, there is a degree of equity between the number of videoconferencingsites available and the number of people who can use those sites throughout theAppalachian Region.

However, the comparison below highlights the impropriety of arguments that equate accessto videoconferencing in such a one-dimensional fashion. When a broader definition ofaccess is employed, inclusive of the essential geographic factors, the inequity of access isapparent.

Figure 43 - Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site

Mar

ylan

d

New

Yor

k

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Penn

sylv

ania

Geo

rgia

Virg

inia

Kent

ucky

Tota

l AR

C R

egio

n

Ohi

o

Alab

ama

Mis

siss

ippi

Wes

t Virg

inia

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Tenn

esse

e

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Squa

re M

iles

State

Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site

Legend Distressed Counties Non-Distressed Counties



Figure 44 - Percentage Increase in Distressed Counties over Non-Distressed Counties(Square Mileage and Population)

-50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 610%

Alabama (Distressed 8%)

Georgia (Distressed 3%)

Kentucky (Distressed 80%)

Mississippi (Distressed 59%)

North Carolina (Distressed 7%)

Ohio (Distressed 31%)

Pennsylvania (Distressed 4%)

Tennessee (Distressed 20%)

Virginia (Distressed 22%)

West Virginia (Distressed 47%)

Percentage increase in Distressed Counties over Non-distressed Counties in Square Miles per Site Percentage increase in Distressed Counties over Non-distressed Counties in Persons per Site



C. Access to Videoconferencing by Population

The trends identified in the previous analyses hold true when the data is examined strictlyfrom the perspective of county population as well. The Appalachian counties, region-widewere categorized into one of five groupings based on population in an attempt to gain insightinto the general role of population size, without regard to the relative level of economicdistress of each county. The following groupings were established:

1. Counties with greater than 200,000 people2. Counties with 90,000 to 200,000 people3. Counties with 30,000 to 89,999 people4. Counties with 10,000 to 29,999 people5. Counties with less than 10,000 people

These categories were established somewhat arbitrarily, according to no guidelines exceptto create a fairly even distribution of counties with similar population characteristics.

The graphs below demonstrate the differences between persons per videoconferencing siteand square miles per videoconferencing site. As in the analyses of the distressed and non-distressed counties above, there is a clear correlation between county population andsquare miles per site. As in the previous analyses, persons per videoconferencing siteshows little variance with fewer individuals per site in the counties with less than 10,000people.

Figure 45 - Comparison of the average number of people per videoconferencing sitebased on county population categories

Persons per Videoconferencing Site (All Counties)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

>200,000 90,000 to199,999

30,000 to89,999

10,000 to29,999

<10,000

County Population Category

Pers

ons

per S

ite



As discussed previously, this lack of variance is primarily a factor of the dynamics ofthe population numbers in these counties rather than a true reflection of the level ofaccess (as explained previously).

The graph below presents the geographic concentration of sites based on square mileagebased on county population. The differences between populated and non-populated regionsare striking. When compared with populated counties (above 200,000 persons), countieswith 10,000 persons or less have 1,523% more square miles per site – counties with 10,000to 30,000 persons have 1,374% more square miles per site. This again demonstrates theextent to which videoconferencing facilities are geographically unavailable in the lesspopulated rural areas of Appalachia.

It is important to note that because of the concentrations of distressed counties, it is notpossible to control for the “distress” variable in this analysis – and thus examine populationin isolation. While distressed and non-distressed counties are grouped together into theirappropriate population category, generally speaking, as the population goes down, thenumber of distressed counties goes up as evidenced in chart below. Nonetheless, theevaluation confirms the results of the previous analysis – that the less populated, ruralcounties have fewer videoconferencing systems that are located geographically farther apartfrom one another than more populated regions.

Figure 46 - Comparison of the average square mileage per videoconferencing site basedon county population categories

Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site (All Counties)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

>200,000 90,000 to 199,999 30,000 to 89,999 10,000 to 29,999 <10,000


Squa

re M

iles



Percentage of DistressedCounties

Percentage of Non-distressed Counties

>200,000 0% 100%

90,000 to 200,000 3% 97%

30,000 to 89,999 14% 86%

10,000 to 29,999 43% 57%

<10,000 50% 50%

D. Organization Types

In addition to comparing the general distribution of videoconferencing sites across theAppalachian Region, the concentration of the various industry sectors that maintain publicvideoconferencing sites was assessed based on the sector definitions described in Section3 of this report. The results are summarized in the charts below.

As expected, the number of business-related commercial sites drops off in distressedcounties when compared with non-distressed counties. This is undoubtedly due to a numberof factors including the fact that there is simply fewer industries in the distressed areas,telecommunications facilities to support videoconferencing are less available and the type ofindustries located in distressed economic areas are less likely to have a need forvideoconferencing.

Also to be expected, business outreach centers are limited in less populated areas whencompared with urban areas. Commercial sites that rent videoconferencing facilities for profithave far less of an opportunity to sell videoconferencing services in these areas.

What is even more interesting is that all of the business-related videoconferencing systems(4 of a total of 140 systems in the distressed counties make up the 3%) are associated withone organization in one location. Big Sandy Telecommuting Services, Inc. (BSTSI) ofPikeville, Kentucky in Pike County is listed as having four systems in this one location. If thisone organization is removed from the equation, the distressed counties are left with no(quantity 0) business-related videoconferencing sites throughout the entire AppalachianRegion.

While these results are not surprising, it does underscore the fact that videoconferencing willmost probably not be developed by the private sector in the distressed counties. If access in



these counties is established, it will be up to the other sectors (education, government andhealth care) to develop videoconferencing facilities and services.

Figure 47 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Distressed Counties

Figure 48 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Non-Distressed Counties

Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Distressed Counties

Education80%

Government7%

Health10%

Business3%

Organization Type of Videoconferencing Sites in Non-Distressed Counties

Business13%

Health11%

Government9%

Education67%



E. Areas Where Videoconferencing Does Not Exist

A total of 119 of the 406 counties (29%) of the Appalachian Region were identified as havingno videoconferencing facilities at all (quantity 0). As in the other analyses, there is a directcorrelation between population and whether or not videoconferencing facilities exist. Asgraph below depicts, the percentage of counties without videoconferencing facilities risessharply as the population of counties decreases. This again confirms that the counties withsmaller populations (and a higher level of distress by correlation) have less access tovideoconferencing than those counties with larger populations.

Well over a third (40%) of the counties in Appalachia identified as having no (quantity0) videoconferencing facilities are distressed counties.

Based on the survey data, the breakdown of counties without videoconferencing varieswidely from state-to-state, with Alabama and Maryland with all of their Appalachian countieshaving at least one videoconferencing facility and West Virginia with 64% of its countieslacking videoconferencing.

Region-wide in Appalachia, approximately 29% of the 406 counties do not have anyidentified known videoconferencing facilities.

Figure 49 - Percentage of Counties with No Videoconferencing Sites

Percentage of Counties with no Videoconferencing Sites

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

>200,000 90,000 to 199,999 30,000 to 89,999 10,000 to 29,999 <10,000


Perc

enta

ge o

f Cou

ntie

s



To gain insight into the impact this has on communities, the population of individuals withoutvideoconferencing in their counties was assessed on a state-by-state basis. While in manystates the number of persons without videoconferencing within their county is quite small(such as Alabama 0%, Maryland 0%, New York 2%, Pennsylvania 1%), in other states, avery significant portion of the population appears to be without videoconferencing in theirhome county (such as Mississippi 24%, North Carolina 29%, Tennessee 23% and WestVirginia 37%).

Region-wide in Appalachia, approximately 2.6 million people (12% of the population)do not have videoconferencing within their home county.

Figure 50 - Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Perc

enta

ge

Alab

ama

Mar

ylan

d

Penn

sylv

ania

New

Yor

k

Virg

inia

Ohi

o

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Kent

ucky

Tota

l AR

C R

Egio

n

Geo

rgia

Mis

siss

ippi

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Tenn

esse

e

Wes

t Virg

inia

State

Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing



F. Local Development Districts

In an attempt to understand how the availability of videoconferencing may effect usage bythe Local Development Districts, information pertaining to LDD use of videoconferencingwas compared with the information presented in the analyses above. The graph belowshows the relative availability of videoconferencing within each territory by categorizingLDDs into one of three groups: Those LDDs that have 5 or more videoconferencing facilitieswithin their region, those that have 2-5 videoconferencing facilities and those that have 2sites or fewer. For each of these groupings, an assessment was made for the percentage ofLDDs that own their own in-house videoconferencing facilities, the percentage that usevideoconferencing facilities elsewhere and the percentage that do not usevideoconferencing at all.

The evidence seems to suggest that there may be a linkage between the LDDs’understanding of the value of videoconferencing and the availability of the technology ineach region – however, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between actual use ofvideoconferencing and availability of the technology.

The graph on the following page demonstrates this point. Notice that in areas where publicvideoconferencing is widely available (5 or more sites within the LDD territory) a large

Figure 51 - Percentage of Population without Videoconferencing Facilities in their County

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Popu

latio

n Pe

rcen

tage

Alab

ama

Mar

ylan

d

Penn

sylv

ania

New

Yor

k

Ohi

o

Virg

inia

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Tota

l AR

C R

egio

n

Geo

rgia

Kent

ucky

Tenn

esse

e

Mis

siss

ippi

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Wes

t Virg

inia

State

Population Percentage without Videoconferencing



percentage of the LDDs (67%) own their own in-house videoconferencing equipment. This isin spite of the fact that public videoconferencing facilities may be close by and available forrent on an as needed basis. In fact, only 27% of LDDs in these areas indicated that theyused videoconferencing elsewhere.

It would be expected that in areas where public videoconferencing facilities are lessavailable (2-5 sites within each LDD territory and 2 or less sites within each LDD territory),the use of these public facilities would be reduced and the ownership of video equipmentwould be higher. This is not the case. In fact, the use of videoconferencing facilitieselsewhere is extremely high (73% for LDD’s with 2-5 sites in their territory and 67% forLDD’s with 2 or less sites in their territory) and the ownership of in-house equipment dropssignificantly.

As expected, in areas where videoconferencing is unavailable (LDD’s with 2 or fewer sites intheir territory) the percentage of LDDs that do not use videoconferencing at all is quite high(31%) when compared with the other groups (9% for LDDs with 2-5 sites and 7% for LDDswith 5 or more sites).

Figure 52 – Patterns of Videoconferencing Use in Among LDDs by Availability ofVideoconferencing in the LDD Territory

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

LDDs w ith 2or LessSites inTerritory

LDDs w ith2-5 Sites in

Territory

LDDs w ith 5or MoreSites in

Territory

Own In-houseVideoconferencingSystemUse VideoconferencingElsewhere

No Use ofVideoconferencing



When the grouping of LDDs that own their own videoconferencing systems is examined andcompared with those LDDs that use videoconferencing facilities elsewhere and those LDDsthat do not use videoconferencing at all, the distinction is even more apparent. The graphbelow demonstrates that the LDDs that maintain their own videoconferencing equipment arelocated in areas that have a far greater number of videoconferencing facilities with theircounties.

While the study did not collect data as to why this is the case, it would follow that theseLDDs have much more exposure to videoconferencing and perhaps have a betterunderstanding of the benefits of the technology. It also may be that there are a greaternumber of organizations that are local to these LDDs that also maintain videoconferencingequipment. Thus, these LDDs have more partners to communicate with viavideoconferencing, adding further to the value of the equipment.

Figure 53 – Average Sites per County vs. Patterns of Use

Average Sites per County

0123456789

10

In-house Use Elsewhere No Use



Section 5 - Recommendations

The recommendations in this section are derived from the information that The Myers Groupcollected and evaluated for this study, the assessment of this data, as well as our insightsinto the regulatory, economic, social and technological climate at this time.

The overarching goal of implementing these recommendations is to set in motion anaggressive, irreversible dynamic in each county and for the Appalachian Region as a whole;one in which an enhanced videoconferencing infrastructure leads to increasedvideoconferencing usage and development which, in turn, encourages additionalvideoconferencing development. Critical success factors include communication,cooperation, and teamwork among organizations and agencies, public and private alike.While the focus of these recommendations is on videoconferencing technology, many applyto telecommunications technology in general.

Specific to videoconferencing, the LDDs and the ARC must focus on activities that capitalizeon the potential of the medium for addressing specific communications needs and/or solvingspecific communications problems. This of course assumes that interactive video technologycan add value in accomplishing this. The results of this study suggest that it can –particularly when examining the LDDs that use videoconferencing technology on a regularbasis. It can be inferred from this group of LDDs that the level of use of videoconferencingcorresponds directly to the practical value of the technology in solving specificcommunications problems or satisfying specific requirements for communicating withoutside entities.

For example, several LDDs in the state of Pennsylvania that use videoconferencingfrequently mentioned regular videoconferences with foreign companies that are part of aninternational export program. Another LDD indicated use of the system 3 to 4 days a weekfor a variety of purposes including a court reporting class via distance learning. In almost allcases, LDDs that use their systems far less often (a few times a year) could not site specificexamples in their responses, but instead provided general answers such as, “for meetings”or “for training”.

This is consistent with The Myers Group’s experiences with other organizations. Amongorganizations that use videoconferencing, if there is not a very specific application (or set ofapplications) that drive the use of the equipment, then the equipment will more than likely sitidle.

Often there is a perception or an expectation on the part of organizations that the technologyitself will provide the applications and desired value. This line of thought is not inconsistentwith other technology acquisitions. For example, one has certain expectations whenobtaining a subscription to cable television. The value is understood and no additional workbeyond installing the service is required.



Videoconferencing is far different, however, in that what is being purchased is not a service,but a tool. Just as one would not purchase a power saw without a specific problem to solve(i.e. cutting boards to build a house), so too should an organization not acquirevideoconferencing without specific application, or set of applications in mind (i.e. weeklymeetings with a development agency five counties away). Failure to make this distinctionsets in motion a negative cycle that has implications for the level of use of the system andindividuals’ perceptions of the technology.

People who fail to understand videoconferencing technology as a tool tend to blame theequipment for not living-up to their expectations. They believe that by simply procuring theequipment the benefits and promise of videoconferencing for sharing information andcollaborating with others will be theirs. In reality, the work has just begun – there is still ahouse to build. They have acquired the tool and now must apply the tool to achieve adesired outcome.

It is our belief that much of this work is yet to be accomplished in this regard among thepartners of this study. Until specific applications are identified and developed, the potentialfor collaboration, knowledge sharing, organizational efficiency and all the other benefits ofvideoconferencing will remain untapped.

In our estimation, there are several interrelated themes where organizations in Appalachiashould focus their attention and energies in order to bring about more and bettervideoconferencing services and capabilities. While many of the recommendations in thissection address specific technical or organizational changes, equally important (if not moreso) are the recommendations addressing changes in the basic thinking and approach oforganizations regarding videoconferencing technology that are prerequisite to the successfulimplementation and sustained use of the technology. These factors are extremely difficult toaddress specifically because they involve changes to organizational culture, perception andunderstanding. While these aspects are not concrete, it is our vehement belief that they formthe foundation for the continued creative use of the technology and will provide the seeds tospawn future development and program growth.

Included among these themes are the following:

• Organization and Communication Among LDDs and the ARC• Capitalizing on Competition and New Developments• Promotion of H.320 Equipment as a Standard for Interconnection• Targeting Videoconferencing Development

A more detailed treatment for each of these recommendations follows.



A. Organization and Communication Among LDDs and the ARC

Good planning and organization is the cornerstone of any telecommunications developmentinitiative. It is also the foundation on which the success of the remaining recommendationsin this section depends. Clear lines of communication must be established and opportunitiesmust be discovered and/or created that utilize the unique features of videoconferencing intearing down geographic barriers. Appropriate forums should be developed for theexchange of information so that videoconferencing users and potential users can discusstheir needs and so that groups and individuals having common needs can be identified andbegin working together.

The idea is to create virtual coalitions of videoconferencing users, enabling the LDDs andother interested parties to easily find and/or develop videoconferencing opportunities – fortraining programs, regional economic development initiatives – any type of opportunity thatmay be enhanced by the inclusion of multiple outside parties.

There must be an effort to reverse the trend in which organizations only operate within theirlimited geographic realm. More often than not, the challenges faced by one organization arethe same challenges faced by others – or are challenges that have been wrestled and dealtwith by others. The promise of videoconferencing and other information technologies is tocreate a medium by which this information may be shared, unencumbered by the barriers ofgeography. The challenge for LDDs and other organizations is to truly understand thepotential of the medium and to leverage this power to bring about change. While clearly thisunderstanding exists for some organizations, the results of this study suggest that others donot yet have a level of awareness of the potential of the technology – let alone the ability todevelop programs and cultivate creative uses that will enhance its value.

On a region-wide basis, the Appalachian Regional Commission has led the effort in thedevelopment and advancement of videoconferencing and telecommunications. Amongthese activities include the development and funding of many strategic telecommunicationsinitiatives, the implementation of regional telecommunications projects, the creation ofcommittees and working groups focusing on telecommunications, the sponsorship ofconferences, workshops and other events – as well as the initiation and funding of studiessuch as this one.

Indeed, the results of this study indicate that the ARC currently plays a significant role invideoconferencing usage among the LDDs. Approximately 62% (26 of 42) of the LDDs thatcurrently use public videoconferencing facilities indicated that they do so, at least in part, toaccess ARC-produced training and programming. It is recommended that the ARC continueto play a direct and active role in developing programming utilizing videoconferencingtechnology, as appropriate – encouraging the use of the technology for overcoming the



barriers of geography, travel and time. Increased exposure to the technology will promoteincreased awareness of videoconferencing technology, its applications, benefits andpotential.

Participation must be global, however, with a greater diversity of organizations contributingvoices and ideas to increase the value of the partnership. One of the basic tenets of anetwork is that the value of the network is directly proportional to the number of users thatcan communicate on the network. It is recommended that the DDAA play a more direct rolein the development of videoconferencing programming, for educational enrichment andongoing communication to and among the Local Development Districts. Successfuldevelopment of quality training and programs that use videoconferencing technology willrequire the organizational insights and leadership of the DDAA. Essential is the DDAA’sunderstanding of the big picture issues, challenges and day-to-day difficulties faced by theLDDs. Needed is coordination and leadership to organize and facilitate communicationbetween the LDDs and to identify areas where videoconferencing can play a role.

To these ends, The Myers Group recommends that the following actions be taken:

Rethinking. Reengineering. – The LDDs, the DDAA and the ARC must begin to considerhow technology – be it videoconferencing or other information technologies – may mitigatethe current communications challenges faced today. While this is very broad, it will be themost difficult of these recommendations to implement. It will require thinking outside the box– rethinking everyday processes, overcoming long held habits and realizing that manythings that have been assumed to be limitations are not necessarily limitations when today’stechnology is applied creatively. When solving problems or planning, LDDs must begin toget in the habit of asking themselves: How can technology help? Are there otherorganizations, or other LDDs that are experiencing a similar situation that we could workwith collaboratively via technology?

LDD Awareness of Videoconferencing. – It was also apparent from our investigation of theLDDs that some LDD organizations do not have a good understanding ofvideoconferencing, including the applications in which the technology is used and thebenefits. Clearly, this level of awareness is prerequisite to the action items discussed in thissection. More than likely, this will be an on-going process, with a select group of pioneeringorganizations taking a leadership role in the development of content and other (lesspioneering) organizations joining in later as they become aware of the use anddemonstrated benefits of technology-mediated communications. As stated above, it isrecommended that the DDAA take an active role in promoting awareness through example– by developing training and other programs to be delivered via videoconferencing.

Awareness of videoconferencing and telecommunications in general needs to be promotedon an on-going basis. Inclusion of telecommunications issues within conferences and



workshops as part of the topics of discussion is one avenue for promoting awareness.These events enable telecommunications users to network face-to-face and discusstelecommunications issues and needs. A good number of examples exist today. A recentconference sponsored by the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and DevelopmentBoard (Western New York), “Gateway to the Millennium: Technological Applications for aCompetitive Advantage”, is an excellent example of one such initiative.

Create an Internet-based forum for sharing information. – A web page and/or a listserv,where information regarding videoconferencing opportunities and telecommunications canbe posted electronically, are other avenues to pursue. Such initiatives would be a big steptoward facilitating an information exchange for videoconferencing users to communicatewith one another on a daily basis.

Such a forum would allow LDD organizations, the DDAA and the ARC to providedescriptions of videoconferencing activities that they are developing, post requests forparticipants for these programs and provide a medium for geographically dispersedorganizations to work together to develop videoconferencing activities. Additionally,organizations may ask for technical help or post general comments to the participatingorganizations.

Internet forums already exist and are frequently used among the LDDs, DDAA and ARC.Topics related to videoconferencing or programs delivered via videoconferencing may beable to be incorporated into the existing ARC web page or the existing listserve thatcurrently serves the LDDs, DDAA and ARC for little or no additional cost.

B. Capitalizing on Competition and New Developments

The telecommunications landscape is intensely dynamic at this point in history.Technological innovation, heated competition, unprecedented demands for bandwidth fromusers and improved pricing for equipment and services have created more opportunities andpitfalls for organizations than ever before. The successful navigation of this stormy seaholds great promise for securing the necessary infrastructure and obtaining competitivepricing for videoconferencing.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other deregulatory initiatives have opened thedoor for increased competition in the telecommunications market. New players haveemerged who are now challenging the incumbent service providers with cheaper and moreadvanced services in markets that used to be the domain of monopolistic carriers.

Most significant are competitive developments in the local exchange. Until very recently,local telephone companies had a lock on the areas that they served. Today, there is morecompetition than ever, with new companies able to provide the circuits employed for



videoconferencing in many regions. In addition, regulation now requires the Regional BellOperating Companies (RBOCs) to allow competitors to resell RBOC phone services and toopen their central offices to competitors for the co-location of equipment. In the laterscenario, competing companies physically locate and interconnect their owntelecommunications equipment with the RBOC’s equipment, allowing them to lease portionsof the RBOC’s network cost effectively. Doing this allows the competitor to lease theportions of the network that would be cost prohibitive to build, establish a customer baseand generate revenue to further build out their own network infrastructure.

There are many examples of these competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) inAppalachia. NewSouth Communications, for example, maintains telecommunicationsfacilities in Birmingham and Huntsville, Alabama; Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee;Greenville, South Carolina and Asheville, North Carolina. Another company, US LEC, hasdeployed advanced telecommunications switches (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) inBirmingham, Pittsburgh and Chattanooga. Both of these companies compete directly withthe incumbent local exchange providers, Bell South and Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic).

While competition in the local exchange has not yet reached many regions of ruralAppalachia, the affects of competition are significant in the areas where it has. In somecases, new services that support videoconferencing, such as ISDN, DSL and high speedinternet connections have become available. The increased service options have prompteddefensive responses from incumbent carriers, forcing them to upgrade services and lowerprices.

Competition in the regional toll and long distance markets is now well established and hashad significant effects on lowering the cost of long distance calls. This too effects switchedvideoconferencing calls (via ISDN), lowering overall usage costs.

In addition to falling service costs, the one-time equipment costs have also droppeddramatically in the last several years. The introduction of new technology, stiffer competitionand a range of scalable options, from small set-top boardroom systems to larger roll-aboutsystems, have allowed organizations implement cost-effective videoconferencing solutions.

With this in mind, The Myers Group recommends the following:

Reevaluate Telecommunications Services and Videoconferencing – For organizations thatmaintain videoconferencing systems, the time is ripe to reconsider existingtelecommunications services, including services dedicated for videoconferencing.Organizations that have not implemented videoconferencing because thetelecommunications services needed to support the technology have not been available orbecause the cost of these services has been too high should also take a second look.



Options such as those listed below have allowed for organizations to obtain the servicesneeded in areas previously unable to be served and to do so at low cost.

Extending ISDN coverage − ISDN, as explained earlier in the report, is an essentialtechnology for supporting dial-up videoconferencing. While available in many areas,coverage is not ubiquitous, and in rural areas, more often than not it is unavailable.Locations in the territory of independent telephone companies (non-RBOC) are often deniedaccess to ISDN services as are RBOC customers in many rural geographies. For theselocations, there may be options available.

Technically, it is possible to extend ISDN to these locations from a remote telephonecompany office that has the service. This requires that a type of circuit called a foreignexchange circuit be established and requires the cooperation of the two offices (which mayor may not be part of the same company). If there are two different companies involved,agreements must be struck between the telephone companies and the costs generally willbe higher than if a single company provided the service. Usually, however, telephonecompanies will work with customers to establish such special arrangements.

For example, if a county office building in Georgia wished to use videoconferencing, but wasunable to do so because ISDN circuits were not available from the small independenttelephone company that served them; they may be able to negotiate with the company tohave the service “brought-in” from the neighboring Bell South central office. Bell South andthe independent telephone company would create a foreign exchange circuit, with eachcompany charging for a portion of the line. Bell South would provide ISDN service to the siteas if it were a part of its own geographic franchise area.

Another option is to obtain ISDN through an interexchange (long distance) company. In thisscenario, a company like AT&T, MCI or Sprint provides the ISDN service and extends it tothe customer via a dedicated circuit such as a T-1. The T-1 circuit is provisioned by the localtelephone company and provides the connection between the customer and theinterexchange company.

Jasper-Troupsburg Central School District in Jasper, New York, for example, uses a T-1circuit to connect with AT&T in this manner. AT&T contracted with the local telephonecompany in Jasper, Citizens Communications, to provide the T-1 circuit. AT&T is able tolease the T-1 at their wholesale rate from Citizens Communications and supply ISDNservice over this circuit to the school.

Cooperative Bids − Another strategy for obtaining services and equipment at better costs isfor multiple organizations to join together to bid for services or equipment. Mostorganizations maintain independent service plans with telecommunications companies orprocure telecommunications equipment on their own. That means there is no continuity of



services, and no means for taking advantage of economies of scale by combining telephoneservices across organizations or for joint purchasing equipment in larger quantities. Again,such collaborations can be quite valuable, but require good communication betweenorganizations. As discussed previously, this level of communication may be facilitated viainformation technologies and videoconferencing.

Another excellent option for many public organizations are state or municipal contracts fortelecommunications equipment or services that public organizations can buy from. Stateswill typically bid for services and equipment on behalf of all state agencies through the stateOffice of General Services (OGS) or Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Amultitude of telecommunications equipment and services may be available. In New YorkState, for example, the following equipment and services related to videoconferencing areavailable through the New York State Office of General Services:

• PictureTel videoconferencing equipment• Polycom videoconferencing equipment• VTEL videoconferencing equipment• SAFARI videoconferencing systems and services• Video teleconferencing system integration (multi-vendor contract)• Carrier Services (long distance, regional toll, ISDN)• Local Usage Services (including ISDN)• Internet Access

Any municipal agency in New York that can purchase from the New York State OGScontract can subscribe to an ISDN service offered by AT&T operating at 384Kbs. Thisservice is suitable for those organizations with needs for applications such asvideoconferencing and is available for $104 per month, with an attractive usage charge. Inaddition to the low cost, the service can be extended to any location in New York State via adedicated T-1 circuit (no charge in addition to the $104/month) regardless of the availabilityof ISDN or carrier (see Extending ISDN Coverage above). Similar contracts are availablefrom the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and many other states in theAppalachian Region.

In other areas of Appalachia, organizations have used these techniques creatively topromote the betterment of the telecommunications infrastructure within their areas. Forexample, Golden Triangle Planning & Development District in Mississippi has positioneditself using telecommunications services available via the state as an internet serviceprovider, extending services throughout its seven-county region. Similar initiatives, whethercollaborative efforts on the part of multiple agencies or initiatives facilitated by a singleagency, may be viable for extending services required for videoconferencing.



C. Promotion of H.320 Equipment as a Standard for Interconnection

As discussed earlier in the report, all videoconferencing systems subscribe to a common setof standard technical specifications, so they can communicate with systems made by othermanufacturers. These technical standards are equivalent to languages in the world ofpeople. A videoconferencing device that employs a particular technical standard tocommunicate such as H.320, can only talk to other devices that use this same standard(speak this same language). H.320 has been by far the predominant standard to-date and itis the standard for point-to-point videoconferencing using the public switched network viaISDN or Switched 56.

In the Appalachian Region, 60% to 90% of the videoconferencing systems identified wereH.320 compliant devices, made by a variety of different manufacturers including PictureTel,VTEL, Polycom, etc. Because of the preponderance of H.320 sites across the region andthe wide availability of public switched access facilities, it is the recommendation of theMyers Group that this standard be designated as the common platform for initiativespromoting interconnection of videoconferencing systems. This builds upon and reinforcesthe ARC’s current program of promoting technology and standards that allow forinterconnection. We recommend that this policy be continued with H.320 being the standardfor videoconferencing connectivity among sites.

Although another standard, H.323, covering video communication via IP (Internet Protocol)is gaining in deployment, it is currently geared toward communication within privatecorporate networks and not widely available as a public use technology. This standard willundoubtedly gain in significance for public use when standards for the internet evolveallowing for guaranteed video quality. As of this writing, such standards do not exist and thepublic switched network, being ubiquitously available, is by far the most likely medium forthe interoperability of the installed base of equipment in Appalachia.

The study identified numerous large networks in Appalachia that currently do not employ theH.320 standard. Many use broadband technologies (including ATM and Motion JPEG) forapplications requiring high quality video such as distance learning or telemedicine. Suchnetworks are “closed-circuit”-type networks made up of a collection of sites that can onlycommunicate with one another, but can not communicate with sites outside. For thesenetworks, however, it is feasible to establish a shared gateway that is H.320 compliant thatwould be accessible by sites in these networks for dialing out, as explained in Section 3 anddemonstrated in the figure on the following page.



Where it is practical and where there is a demonstrated need for interconnection to outsidelocations in “closed-circuit”-type networks, it is the recommendation of The Myers Group thatthese gateways be established. Creation of a shared gateway is an extremely cost-effectiveway of leveraging resources, opening-up the benefits of dial-up videoconferencing to a largenumber of locations with a single technology purchase.

Several distance learning networks in New York State have established such gateways,including Luminet (a network of schools and other organizations administered by Broome-Tioga BOCES) and the Steuben-Allegany BOCES distance learning network. With gatewaysinstalled, these networks are able to run their independent schedule of distance learning

Site CSite A

Site D

CODEC

Site B

CODEC

CODEC CODEC

Remote Site

GatewayCODEC

PublicTelephoneNetwork

CODEC



classes via their closed-circuit fiber optic network and dial-out to other H.320 compliantdevices when desired. The current configuration allows any site on either network toconnect with any other site on either network – or dial-up any site in the world that usesH.320 compliant equipment.

The ARC may play a role in funding these gateways where there is a demonstrated needand desire on the part of users to make educational programs, specialized training, etc.available in one network also available in another. Establishing gateways through the publicswitched telephone network is an excellent way to bridge the gaps between network“islands”.

There are many different design scenarios for establishing H.320 gateways in dedicatednetworks, each dependent upon the network configuration, type of technology in place andthe contract conditions negotiated with the carrier providing the service. For the purposes ofestimating the cost for establishing such a gateway, the Myers Group has developed roughcost estimates based on one possible configuration of a network gateway for a broadbandnetwork. These costs are presented below:

Description CostEstimate

Polycom Videoconferencing System $ 9,600Sigma Video Routing System $ 900Gentner Sound System / Amplifier / Router $ 1,100Middle Atlantic Mounting Racks/Hardware $ 400Installation/Integration/Programming $ 3,400TOTAL $15,400

Again, these costs are only presented for the purposes of illustration. Actual costs will varybased on the types of equipment and services in place and the competitiveness of thepricing (approximate list pricing was used in the example above). For example, if a PrimaryRate Interface (PRI) ISDN line provides the connection to the public switched network, thenan inverse multiplexor (such as an Ascend T-1 Imux) may need to be added to the costsabove (an addition of roughly $6,500).

There are additional on-going costs with the establishment of a compressed video gatewayas well. For the purposes of estimation, three ISDN BRI lines providing 384Kbs connectivitywill cost, on average, $135 per month ($45 per line) plus usage. These costs will vary widelyfrom one state to another and from one service provider to another however. Usage istypically equivalent to the normal business rate for a telephone call (add long distancecharges if applicable) – multiplied by six (x6) for a 348Kbs videoconferencing session.



D. Targeting Videoconferencing Development

This study has demonstrated that videoconferencing facilities are not dispersed ubiquitouslythroughout Appalachia, nor are they dispersed equitably. Gaps in telecommunicationsservice availability exist, as do variations in the level of knowledge, understanding and needof the technology of the people of Appalachia. It is our belief that a videoconferencingdevelopment strategy that accounts for these elements is best suited for Appalachia. Tothese ends, The Myers Group recommends that initiatives centered on videoconferencingtechnology take into account the following:

• Make Videoconferencing Site Information Widely Available• Focus on Shared Resources• Focus on High Need Areas• Focus on the Likelihood of Sustained Use

Make Videoconferencing Site Information Widely Available – It is recommended that theinformation compiled in this study on known videoconferencing sites be made widelyavailable, not only to the LDDs, but also to the public at large. Only with the active use ofthis information and the constant revision of the data will this study have lasting significance.Currently, the study provides a snapshot of a period of time of the videoconferencingfacilities available in Appalachia; and as stated before, this information is only as completeas the returned survey responses received. The information is highly dynamic, changingconstantly as organizations acquire new videoconferencing equipment and update existingsystems.

To best control, update and promote this information as a dynamic resource, it isrecommended that each LDD maintain a portion of the database, relevant to their owncounties, on their own local web sites. This model would distribute control and theresponsibility for the upkeep of each web site to the organizations most familiar with thebusinesses and organizations within each local territory. It will allow each LDD to act as thebroker for its area and create yet another attraction for local industries and organizations onthe individual LDD web pages.

It is also recommended that these web pages be created in such a manner that localbusinesses, schools, libraries, etc. can easily register and update their videoconferencingsites. For the LDDs, this will remove much of the burden of regularly surveying localorganizations and updating the information.

Ideally, each web page interface on all LDD web sites relating to videoconferencing will bethe same, allowing for ease of navigation on the part of users. It is also recommended thatan index of hyperlinks to LDD pages for videoconferencing be maintained on the web pagesof both the ARC and the DDAA. Such an index could either be a stand-alone page or built



into the ARC’s current page. In the later case, the ARC would simply incorporate additionalhyperlinks in the “Local Development Districts in the Appalachian Region” pages of thecurrent ARC web page.

Creation of these LDD web pages may incorporate well into the work related to theInteractive Applications Group, Inc. (IAPPs) program currently underway in the LDD sites. Itis our understanding that individual web pages are being created on behalf of the LDDs toprovide a common interface and platform to facilitate the sharing of information between theorganizations.

Focus on Shared Resources – The economic benefits of sharing facilities are clear. In thissection, we have already discussed the benefits of sharing a videoconferencing gatewayamong several organizations. From a technical perspective, it is not much different thansharing a printer on an office computer network. The value of the printer is increasedbecause more people can gain access to it. Because a printer is not a device that is neededfor large contiguous periods of time by any one person, it makes sense to share it withothers so it does not sit idle. Videoconferencing systems are much the same way. Typically,sessions are short (one half to one hour on average) and not used in contiguous time blocksby an organization throughout the day. With this in mind, The Myers Group recommendsthat opportunities for sharing equipment be explored.

In many areas of Appalachia, Business Outreach Centers and Community Access Centershave been established to assist local businesses and communities with basic services toassist in the economic development of regions. These organizations are known by severalnames including “Community Technology Centers” and “Neighborhood Networks” andfunded through many different agencies including the ARC, the NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and many others. Oftenincluded among the resources provided are services related to technology, such ascomputer usage/training and cooperative technology purchasing.

The mission of these organizations dovetail with the intent of the recommendations of thisreport in that the sharing of technological resources is encouraged with a focus on moderntechnology to solve practical problems. Videoconferencing technology can be yet anothertool in reaching out to establish new relationships with other businesses and in newmarkets. The ARC and other agencies may play a role in funding videoconferencingfacilities in these centers in cases where there is value in bringing enhancedvideoconferencing services to a region. These centers may be good targets in regionswhere videoconferencing facilities are lacking (see Maps 1 and 2 in Section 3).

Focus on High Need Areas – In this report, areas in which significant gaps exist invideoconferencing services have been identified. As demonstrated, these regions tend to



correspond with the relative level of economic distress. In the attached appendices, location-specific reports have been provided (by state and county). These reports provide additionalinsight to the availability of videoconferencing facilities in the region.

As stated previously, the information represents a “best-effort” in compiling all informationwithin the Appalachian Region. The information is only as complete as the number andthoroughness of completed surveys and the degree of cooperation of regional entities inhelping to identify potential videoconferencing sites. The Myers Group is aware of somespecific regions where the data compiled is questionable. It is clear to us thatvideoconferencing facilities in Tennessee and North Carolina are undercounted. In thesecases, network administrators or officials were reluctant, or refused outright to shareinformation regarding network sites. We believe that other states are also underrepresenteddue to low response rates to the videoconferencing survey.

It is our firm belief that the LDDs in each area are best suited to track-down missinginformation and maintain videoconferencing information regarding their counties. Clearly theLDDs have an advantage over the ARC or an outside group in that there are establishedrelationships and understandings within each region as well as a far greater familiarity withthe local goings-on of these communities.

Regardless, the information presented here should serve as a guide for the identification ofareas in high need for videoconferencing technology. In the interest of promoting equity andbridging the digital divide in Appalachia, it is recommended that these high need areas betargeted for development provided that there are organizations in the area with ademonstrated need for the technology.

Referring to the Organization Type maps of videoconferencing sites in Section 3 (Map 7, 7B,7C, 7D, 7E), it is clear that the representation of videoconferencing sites by sectordramatically differs from one to the next. Educational institutions offer the most equitabledistribution of videoconferencing sites, but the concentration of business, government andhealth sites range greatly – each showing large gaps in services. Sector-specific strategiesfor developing videoconferencing may also be encouraged. For example, regionaltelemedicine networks or initiatives among hospitals may be encouraged through preferredgrant funding in areas where services are lacking.

Focus on the Likelihood of Sustained Use – Perhaps the most difficult challenge faced bythose who wish to develop videoconferencing services is in gauging the potential forcontinued use of the technology by organizations. The essence of this recommendationboils down to the understanding of videoconferencing on the part of organizations thatintend to use it; their understanding of what it is, and what it is not. As stated previously, it isimperative that organizations understand that videoconferencing is a tool and not a servicethat can stand on its own.



Organizations that understand videoconferencing as a tool are able to clearly define aproblem or a communications need and are able to articulate how videoconferencing canovercome the problem or satisfy the need. These organizations are able to point to veryspecific applications that drive the use of the equipment (i.e. weekly meetings with a specificagency for a specific project) and have well-organized procedures, policies and supportstructures to support the continued use of the technology. These organizations candemonstrate a broader context and strategy into which videoconferencing technology playsa role. They understand that videoconferencing is not going to solve problems – howeverthe creative use of the technology may.

Organizations that do not understand videoconferencing will often talk of the potential forvideoconferencing use. They imagine the possible uses of the equipment. Rather thanspecific applications, they indicate that the technology will come in handy for meetings andtraining. They talk about how videoconferencing will solve their problems and may have adifficult time explaining how the technology fits into the bigger strategy for their organization.

Acquiring videoconferencing technology is the easy part; it is then that the real work begins.


Appalachian Regional CommissionVideoconferencing Survey

Appendices

December 2000

133 Front StreetVestal, NY 13850TEL 607 754-5037FAX 607 754-6975

[email protected]

section 1: project overview

Documents

videoconferencing basics

public videoconferencing

local development districts

development period

phase v

public site information

concentration of sites

facility information