Section 1: Project Overview

Appalachian Regional Commission
Videoconferencing Survey

Final Report

December 2000

133 Front Street
Vestal, NY 13850
TEL 607 754-5037
FAX 607 754-6975
www.myersgroup.com
info@myersgroup.com

Appalachian Regional Commission Videoconferencing Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Section 2: Project Summary and Methodology ..................................................................... 7
A. Phase I: Discovery Period ............................................................................................ 7
B. Phase II: Development Period ...................................................................................... 9
1. Local Development District Surveys.......................................................................... 9
2. Public Videoconferencing Site Survey....................................................................... 9
C. Phase III: Data Collection and Mapping ..................................................................... 11
D. Phase IV: Analysis ..................................................................................................... 12
E. Phase V: Plan, Recommendations and Documentation.............................................. 13

Section 3: Findings ............................................................................................................. 14
A. Public Videoconferencing Sites .................................................................................. 14
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 14
2. Technology ............................................................................................................. 19
3. General and Facility Information ............................................................................. 42
4. Key Observations Regarding Public Site Information .............................................. 51
B. Local Development Districts ....................................................................................... 52
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 52
2. Local Development District Information................................................................... 53
3. LDDs with In-House Videoconferencing Systems ................................................... 55
4. LDDs that use Videoconferencing Elsewhere ......................................................... 57
5. LDDs that do not use Videoconferencing ................................................................ 58
6. Key Observations.................................................................................................... 60

Section 4 - Analysis ............................................................................................................ 62
A. Appalachia, Videoconferencing and the Digital Divide ................................................ 62
B. Access to Videoconferencing in Distressed Counties ................................................. 64
2. Square Mileage Analysis........................................................................................ 68
C. Access to Videoconferencing by Population............................................................... 73
D. Organization Types .................................................................................................... 75
E. Areas Where Videoconferencing Does Not Exist........................................................ 77
F. Local Development Districts ....................................................................................... 79

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

© 2000 The Myers Group ▪ 607-754-5037 ▪ info@myersgroup.com


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Percentage of Total Sites in each ARC State ......................................................................15
Figure 2 - Concentration of Sites within each State..............................................................................16
Figure 3 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code ......................................17
Figure 4 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by County..........................................18
Figure 5 - Public Videoconferencing Site System Types......................................................................20
Figure 6 – Map of Videoconferencing System Types by Zip Code ......................................................21
Figure 7 - Public Videoconferencing Site Equipment Manufacturers ...................................................22
Figure 8 - Switched Network Connection for Videoconferencing .........................................................23
Figure 9 - Dedicated Network Connection for Videoconferencing........................................................23
Figure 10 - Hybrid Switched/Dedicated Connection for Videoconferencing.........................................24
Figure 11 - Public Videoconferencing Site Connection Capabilities.....................................................25
Figure 12 - Technical Standards: System Interoperability ....................................................................26
Figure 13 – Map of H.320 Capability of Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code.....27
Figure 14 - Summary of Videoconferencing Transmission Technologies ............................................28
Figure 15 - Network Capabilities of Public Videoconferencing Sites in the Appalachian Region ........29
Figure 16 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Capabilities..........................................................31
Figure 17 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Methods ..............................................................32
Figure 18 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites with Bridging Capabilities by Zip Code..........................33
Figure 19 - Public Videoconferencing Site Media.................................................................................34
Figure 20 - Public Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds........................................................37
Figure 21 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds by Zip Code .................................38
Figure 22 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (T-1).............................................39
Figure 23 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (Broadband Fiber) .......................40
Figure 24 – Map of Videoconferencing Site Transmission Speeds (ISDN)..........................................41
Figure 25 - Public Videoconferencing Site Organization Types ...........................................................43
Figure 26 – Map of Videoconferencing Sites by Organization Type by Zip Code................................45
Figure 27 – Map of Health Videoconferencing Sites by Zip Code........................................................46
Figure 28 – Map of Government/Public/Non-Profit Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip
Code .............................................................................................................................................47
Figure 29 – Map of Education Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code ...................48
Figure 30 – Map of Business Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region by Zip Code.....................49
Figure 31 - LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities..................................................................................53
Figure 32 – Map of LDD Videoconferencing Use in the ARC Region by County.................................54
Figure 33 - LDD In-House Frequency of Use .......................................................................................55
Figure 34 - LDD In-House Primary System Uses .................................................................................56
Figure 35 - LDD In-House Equipment Manufacturers ..........................................................................57
Figure 36 - LDD Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere .........................................................57
Figure 37 - LDD Frequency of Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere ...................................58
Figure 38 - LDD Reasons for Not Using Videoconferencing ................................................................59
Figure 39 - LDD (non-using) Knowledge Level of Videoconferencing..................................................59
Figure 40 - LDD (non-using) Potential of Using Videoconferencing.....................................................60
Figure 41- Comparison of Sites per County and Distressed Counties .................................................65
Figure 42 - Site Distribution Among Populations of Distressed and Non-Distressed Counties ...........68
Figure 43 - Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site......................................................................71



Figure 44 - Percentage Increase in Distressed Counties over Non-Distressed Counties (Square
Mileage and Population)...............................................................................................................72
Figure 45 - Comparison of the average number of people per videoconferencing site based on county
population categories ...................................................................................................................73
Figure 46 - Comparison of the average square mileage per videoconferencing site based on county
population categories ...................................................................................................................74
Figure 47 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Distressed Counties.....................76
Figure 48 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Non-Distressed Counties.............76
Figure 49 - Percentage of Counties with No Videoconferencing Sites.................................................77
Figure 50 - Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing .................................................78
Figure 51 - Percentage of Population without Videoconferencing Facilities in their County ................79
Figure 52 – Patterns of Videoconferencing Use in Among LDDs by Availability of Videoconferencing
in the LDD Territory ......................................................................................................................80
Figure 53 – Average Sites per County vs. Patterns of Use ..................................................................81



Section 1: Project Overview

A. Study Background
In August of 1998 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) agreed to support a
proposal from the Development District Association of Appalachia (DDAA) to fund a number
of 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 enhanced
telecommunication applications/technologies, become more capable in the use of these
technologies and assist in the provision of technical services in telecommunications. The
DDAA proposal included the provision of comprehensive technical assistance on the use of
various types of telecommunication services, the use of the Internet and development of
individual Web sites.

The proposal also included the support of a demonstration program by some of the LDDs in
the use of their existing videoconferencing equipment to address regional information
gathering, receiving and transmitting training programs, and other collaborative efforts
between 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 identifying
publicly accessible, interactive video teleconferencing sites in the region that would permit
the 71 LDDs, State ARC personnel, and the ARC headquarters facility to jointly participate
in regional videoconferencing using modern telecommunications technologies and facilitated
videoconferencing techniques.

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

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

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

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

© 2000 The Myers Group ▪ 607-754-5037 ▪ info@myersgroup.com 1


4. Are there significant issues of interoperability between systems that exist throughout the
region that will render a number of sites unusable for major regional videoconferencing
purposes?

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

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

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

B. The Digital Divide
The availability of videoconferencing in the most rural reaches of the United States has been
brought to the forefront in recent years as the deployment of technology in well-to-do urban
and suburban areas has out-paced technology growth in rural regions. This concept has
been addressed more formally as a social and economic issue in the federal government’s
recent report on the “Digital Divide”, which has brought into light inequities in regard to
access to the Internet and other information technologies that are crucial to the economic
growth 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 best
information technology that society has to offer. These people have the
most powerful computers, the best telephone service and fastest Internet
service, as well as a wealth of content and training relevant to their lives.”
Another percentage of people exist who “…don't have access to the
newest or best computers, the most reliable telephone service or the
fastest or most convenient Internet services. The difference between
these 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 the
divide. This means that there is less opportunity to take part in the new information-based
economy, and to take part in the education, training, and communications opportunities that
are available through modern telecommunications facilities. Videoconferencing is one
technology 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 throughout
the United States is unknown. Information is spotty, at best, and difficult to collect on a wide
scale basis. The Appalachian Regional Commission Videoconferencing Survey is an effort
on the part of the ARC to examine this one component of the issue, assess the impact and
significance in Appalachia and implement a strategy for regional videoconferencing
throughout the 13-state region.

C. The ARC
The Appalachian Regional Commission is a federal/state partnership established by the
Appalachian Regional Development Act to promote economic and social development of the
Appalachian Region. The Act defines the Region as 406 counties comprising all of West
Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia - an area of 195,000
square miles and about 21 million people. To promote local planning and implementation of
ARC initiatives, the Commission supports 71 Local Development Districts (LDDs) comprised
of groups of counties within each of the 13 states. The Commission has 14 members: the 13
Governors of the 13 Appalachian states and a Federal Co-chairman, who is appointed by
the 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 physical
infrastructure; health, education, and human resource development; economic development
programs, local capacity building and leadership development. Recent analysis of the 406
counties within the ARC region, based on the Commission's 1998 definitions of economic
development levels, indicate that 108 counties were designated distressed because of high
rates of poverty and unemployment and low rates of per capita market income compared to
national averages; 264 counties were designated transitional, with higher than average rates
of poverty and unemployment rates and lower per capita market income; 24 counties have
nearly achieved parity with national socioeconomic norms and are now designated as
competitive, and 10 counties have reached or exceeded national norms and are now
designated as attainment counties. In keeping with changing regional conditions, the
Commission periodically alters its specific program policies to address current development
priorities. ARC also continuously evaluates its programs and policies to assure that its
constituents needs are satisfied in the most optimum way possible.

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



engaged in a videoconferencing session, all participants must be experiencing an equivalent
level of communication which includes live interactive video and real-time interactive audio
communication (with no more than a few seconds of delay from the time of the origination of
the 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 this
analysis. For example, some forms of satellite video communication or broadcast video, it
can be argued, can be interactive if persons viewing the program can interact via some
other means (such as a telephone or fax machine). For the purposes of this study, these
types of conferencing arrangements were not considered.

Videoconferencing, in this report, is a collection of technologies that form the foundation for
a 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 picture
and 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 of
interactive video, however, many analog videoconferencing networks still exist and provide
extremely 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 video
technology 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 standard
for broadcast television originally developed in 1948 (NTSC). This is the standard that all
standard (non-HDTV) televisions in the United States use. Because NTSC video signals
consume so much bandwidth, analog interactive video is typically provided via dedicated
coaxial or fiber optic cable. Generally these type of connections are costly. Each individual
video signal and audio signal at the point of origination is modulated onto the cable and then
demodulated at the other end to be viewed on a television monitor.

Digital Videoconferencing

In digital videoconferencing systems, captured video and audio signals are converted to
computer data, processed by computer circuits (or coded), routed through phone lines made
for computer data, and finally converted back (decoded) into video and audio. Since video
contains 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 signal
again at the other end.



The flood of raw data generated by live video and audio could fill hundreds of digital phone
lines to capacity. Therefore, digital videoconferencing relies on compression to fit all that
data 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 and
DECoder). Video, audio and data all connect into the codec, which transmits a single, digital
signal over the network to the remote location(s). The network consists of digital lines that
are similar to, but different from, regular telephone lines.

The growing worldwide network of dial-up digital phone lines provides this compressed
audio and video a way to move from place to place. The two most common kinds of dial-up
digital services are called ISDN BRI (Integrated Services Digital Network, Basic Rate
Interface) and switched-56. ISDN BRI provides two data channels, each with a capacity of
64kbps (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 Rate
Interface). This offers up to twenty-three (23) 64kbps channels (plus one 64Kbs channel for
signaling) that can be used to gain greater capacities.

Often, a single codec can accept multiple ISDN BRI lines or multiple switched 56 lines which
improves 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 with
systems made by other manufacturers. The standards include H.320, H.323, H.261, T.120
and many others.

The most common standard is H.320, which covers a suite of standards for
videoconferencing over ISDN, switched-56, and other kinds of digital phone lines. It deals
with data rates between 56 kbps and 2048 kbps. T.120 is a standard that compliments the
H.320 standard allowing for computer-based meeting tools - such as computerized slide
displays, WindowsTM application sharing, and digital whiteboards. These tools work by
sending and receiving data through the same line that carries the H.320 video and audio
signals.

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 communication
over 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 this
equipment, all sites must be equipped with J-Series codecs to communicate with one
another.

Multi-point videoconferences (3 or more videoconferencing systems participating together in
a session) are possible with the use of a videoconferencing bridge. A bridge works by either
switching 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 one
of the quadrants of the screen.

Television monitors are used for viewing the distant site(s) as well as any documents or
video being exchanged. Other devices, such as a document camera, can be used to share
graphics, and other peripherals such as laptop computers can be connected to the system
as 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 a
camera to mount directly on top of a television monitor. A roll-about system is the same as a
set-top system, except that the television monitor is integrated with the entire system on a
moveable cart - allowing for its use in different locations. A desktop system integrated with a
personal computer relies on the hardware and software of the PC for videoconferencing.
Finally, some locations maintain dedicated videoconferencing rooms specifically for
videoconferencing and contain permanently mounted equipment. These system types are
further discussed in Section 3 of this document.

Videoconferencing systems usually have one or a combination of the following three
connection capabilities. A switched connection can dial-up any other compatible
videoconferencing system and uses the public network via ISDN, switched 56, an internet
connection, or other method. A dedicated connection can only interact with other sites on a
particular network and connects using one of a host of various connections (i.e. dedicated
56Kbs, 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, or
cable television system only has the capability to receive (or send) video signals from the
outside and to interact requires the use of a telephone, fax machine or other device. As
stated 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 information
related to videoconferencing in the Appalachian Region.

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

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

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

A. Phase I: Discovery Period
The goal of this phase was to gather the essential information that formed the platform for
the 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 the
Data Collection Phase). Finally, the information gathered helped to further define the study
and thus helped to ensure that the information collected was relevant and valuable to the
ARC.

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

• Review of Myers Group Relevant Files and Reports − The Myers Group has conducted
numerous videoconferencing and distance learning research studies in the Appalachian
Region. A review of existing archives was completed which produced some initial
investigative information.

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



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

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

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

• Interview ARC Officials, LDD Staff and Key Contacts − The Myers Group completed
interviews of appropriate representatives from identified project partner groups to seek
input on the type of information to be collected, methods for data collection, other
sources of information, etc.

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

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

This first pass "forecasted" the type of information that would be gathered during the data
collection phase. This forecasting provided a preview of the content, style, and amount of
related information already available. This information spanned a tremendous range; from a
web site simply stating that videoconferencing is available in Pittsburgh, PA to a web page
providing 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: Development
Period 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 during
Data Collection. As these leads were pursued, more were generated.



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

To capture and manage the collected information, a database was designed using Microsoft
Access. Data entry forms were developed with input masks and drop down boxes designed
to control error during the data entry process. A relational database design was selected to
provide the flexibility needed for data analysis in Phase V. Attachment A provides a sample
view 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 videoconferencing
sites. The content and the form of each survey were based on an assessment of the
information gathered during Discovery. The goal was to design survey forms that concisely
captured the information determined to be most critical to the study. The LDD surveys were
designed to assess the current needs and capabilities of each LDD. The Public Site surveys
were designed to gather very specific contact, technical, and facility information that would
populate the database.

1. Local Development District Surveys
The LDD surveys were designed as telephone surveys. Each survey was preceded by a
letter to each LDD to introduce the project, introduce The Myers Group and to inform each
of 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 any
mass 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 Section
3 of this document.

2. Public Videoconferencing Site Survey
Several methods were chosen to administer the Public Site Survey. The goal was to contact
as many sites as possible, as quickly as possible to verify existing information and collect
additional information as appropriate. Based on an assessment of the data compiled during
the 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 online
survey form and a description of the project and players. It was determined that web
access to the survey was highly desirable for four reasons: 1) it made the survey easily
accessible via a public medium (the internet); 2) respondents could access the survey at
a time that was convenient for them; 3) it reduced the potential for data entry error (users
entered the data themselves); 4) it saved data entry time (data was imported directly into
the database). All potential respondents were encouraged to utilize the web page. The
URL 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 a
respondent could reply by using the reply feature − and included a hyperlink to the web
survey 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-mail
addresses but with complete mailing addresses. Each survey referenced the web page
URL and encouraged respondents to use the Internet as the mode of response.
Separate written surveys were drafted for mass mailings to all higher education
institutions and hospitals within the Appalachian Region.

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

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

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 have
a bearing on the accuracy and relevance of the data. After filtering numerous listings, a total
of 1,800 entries were recorded in the database. After further data cleaning throughout the
project, 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 involved
assessing the available contact information, determining the most appropriate survey type to
administer, and formatting the data appropriately to distribute each survey. The design of
the existing database was altered to manage, record and track contact responses
throughout the rest of the project.



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

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

Many of the sites that passed the filtering processes completed during the Development
Phase proved to have outdated or incomplete information. As a result, many initial survey
attempts resulted in returned surveys or failed responses. Also, approximately 425 sites
were eliminated due to the following reasons: initial contact information was incorrect and
actual videoconferencing site fell outside of the ARC region; the site had no public
videoconferencing facility available at that location; sites that initial research reported had
videoconferencing in fact only had satellite transmission capability; no contact could be
reached to verify the initial site listing. Any surveys returned electronically or via US mail
were tracked and held for follow-up attempts. Sites that were unreachable after all available
avenues 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, most
sites provided complete contact information. Often, however, the Technical or Facility
Information sections were incomplete or questionable in their degree of accuracy. For
example, several surveys were submitted by sites mistaking their satellite downlink
capability for videoconferencing. Incomplete surveys were set aside for a follow-up phone
call or e-mail. Two attempts were made to research any missing information. Consequently,
several site listings have incomplete Technical or Facility information. However, the Contact
Information, the most crucial piece of information for this project, is complete for nearly all
1,375 remaining records.

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

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



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

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

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

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

• Identification of Significant Gaps in Videoconferencing Service Availability in the ARC
Region − Gaps in videoconferencing services were identified and represented
graphically in maps identifying potential users and existing services.

• Determine Interoperability Between Existing Videoconferencing Systems − All
detailed technical information regarding standards (i.e. H.320 and H.323) and
technology (i.e. RF, M-JPEG, MPEG, MPEG-2, ISDN) collected throughout the study
was compared. An “Interoperability Map” that graphically demonstrates which sites
can presently communicate was prepared. This information was used to formulate a
strategy for interconnection in the Plan, Recommendations and Documentation
phase of the study.

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

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



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

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

This phase involved reviewing all previous work done on this project, devising a strategy for
improving videoconferencing access and generating detailed recommendations. Also
provided are details on videoconferencing access and costs for LDD sites and for
interconnection 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 publicly
accessible, interactive video teleconferencing sites in the region that will permit the LDDs,
State ARC personnel, and the ARC headquarters facility to jointly participate in regional
videoconferencing. It is expected that videoconferencing facilities can be used by the
region's 71 LDDs, as well as citizens groups, and organizations to originate, and participate
in videoconferencing.

In this section, the information gathered about these publicly accessible is presented. The
information gathered on each site is in various levels of completeness. As much information
as 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 are
moderately 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 of
knowledge 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 available
from each site at the time of data collection was recorded and is presented included in this
section.

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

• Location of site, to include county, city, ownership of site, and complete mailing
address. Name of contact person, with telephone number, fax, email and web page
URL

• Availability of site to accommodate different types of original signal transmission over
various types of high speed and wide band network services. Information includes
specific line speed particulars for sites, compression and standards capabilities,
access to "Bridge" facilities, network interface flexibility, and potential system
upgrade capabilities.

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



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

A total of 1,375 sites are included in this report. This does not imply that there are not
additional sites within the region. The sites included in this survey were found via the
research methods described in this report, and the information included herein is based
on available survey information. With the cost of videoconferencing falling and the
increased availability of ISDN and internet access throughout the US and the ARC
region, 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 quarter
of 1999 and 1st quarter of 2000. The information is dynamic as more sites implement
videoconferencing technology, some decommission it and still other upgrade existing
facilities.

2. Public Videoconferencing Site Information

The number of public videoconferencing sites within each state within the ARC region is
reflected 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 that
Pennsylvania has the greatest number of total counties in the ARC region.

Sites by State MS
SC 2%
PA 1%
NC
45% 3% MD
3%
OH
3%
VA
4%
TN
5%

WV
5%
KY
5%
NY AL
10% GA 6%
8%

Figure 1 - Percentage of Total Sites in each ARC State

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



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

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

Concentration of sites
14
12 12
12
Ratio = sites/counties

10
10
8
6
4 3 3
2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1

0
SC MS WV TN KY OH VA AL SC GA NY MD PA
State

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 on
the map represents a unique zip code, and each symbol depicts the number of sites within
that zip code. The videoconferencing site data is also represented in Map 2:
Videoconferencing Sites in the ARC Region (by County). These maps point out the
distribution and approximate geographic location of all 1,375 public videoconferencing sites
within the ARC region. Each of these sites are characterized by different system types and
manufacturers, interconnection, media, and transmission speeds, and this information is
detailed 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 Types
Videoconferencing 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 on
top of a television monitor. The monitor may sit on a moveable cart - allowing for its
use in different locations.

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

Set-top system Desktop system integrated Dedicated Videoconferencing
with a PC Room

These system types are found throughout the ARC region. Based on available
survey information, of 1,375 public sites, the majority of the sites list an "unknown"
videoconferencing type because the contact or individual completing the survey did
not know this information or the survey was not completed (or not completed in its
entirety).

Although the primary system type found was Dedicated Videoconferencing Rooms
(16%), it is suspected that the overwhelming majority of the sites listed as unknown
are in fact either set-top/roll-about systems or desk-top systems. This can be inferred
from other data included for each record – including the equipment manufacturer,
videoconferencing standards listed, the seating capacity of the facility, transmission
speeds, etc. Most of the sites that reported "Other", in fact, had multiple types of
systems, and did not specify their primary system type.



Public Videoconferencing System Types

Dedicated Room
16%

Desktop System
2%
Other
unknown
1%
78% Set-Top or Roll-
About
3%

Figure 5 - Public Videoconferencing Site System Types

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



Figure 6 – Map of Videoconferencing System Types by Zip Code



2.2 System Manufacturers
Many manufacturers produce videoconferencing systems. Some of the most popular
equipment manufacturers include Intel, which focuses on desktop computer
conferencing; PictureTel and VTEL, which offer a variety of products but concentrate
on roll-about and set-top type systems. Tektronix and ADC Communications
manufacture broadband fiber and DS3 (high bandwidth) codecs targeted toward
high-bandwidth networks.

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

Equipment Manufacturer

PictureTel
27%
Sony
Intel
1%
CLI 2%
2% Tektronix
ADC 4%
2%

VTEL
15%

Other
Unknown 2%
45%

Figure 7 - Public Videoconferencing Site Equipment Manufacturers

2.3 Interconnectivity
Videoconferencing systems usually have one or a combination of the following three
connection capabilities. A switched connection provides the videoconferencing
system with the capability to dial-up any other compatible system regardless of the
location and uses the public switched network via ISDN, switched 56, an internet
connection, or other method. The two systems communicating together can literally
be located anywhere in the world (Birmingham, Alabama and Sidney, Australia for
example), provided the two systems are compatible and operating according to the
same technical standards. Because the connections are typically established via the
public switched telecommunications network, video compression must be used over
narrow bandwidth lines (i.e. ISDN lines at 384Kbs or lower). This degrades the video
signal, to some extent, based on the bandwidth available.



Site A Public Site B
Telephone
Network
CODEC CODEC

Figure 8 - Switched Network Connection for Videoconferencing

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

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

Site B

CODEC

Site A CODEC CODEC
Site C

CODEC

Site D

Figure 9 - Dedicated Network Connection for Videoconferencing



Some videoconferencing facilities have hybrid systems that operate with both
capabilities (switched and dedicated). Often sites connected together on a closed-
circuit (dedicated) system share a codec that has dial-out capabilities – in a manner
similar 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.

Site B

CODEC

Site A CODEC CODEC Site C

CODEC

Gateway
CODEC

Site D Public
Telephone
Network

Remote Site

CODEC

Figure 10 - Hybrid Switched/Dedicated Connection for Videoconferencing



Broadcast-type systems, such as a satellite-based, broadcast, or cable television
systems only have the capability to receive (or send) video signals from the outside
and 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 the
Appalachian Region.

Connection Capabilities

Dedicated and Dial-
up Capabilities
Dial-Up Only
5%
54%

Dedicated 'Closed
Circuit Networks'
7%

Unknown
34%

Figure 11 - Public Videoconferencing Site Connection Capabilities

2.4 Videoconferencing Standards: Interoperability of Systems

Most videoconferencing systems subscribe to a common set of standard technical
specifications, so they can communicate with systems made by other manufacturers.
There are today several major standards that apply to business-quality
videoconferencing. 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 the
existing 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 video
communication via IP (Internet Protocol). The H.323 suite of standards allows for
interactive video communication over a variety of data network types that
communicate via IP (including ethernet local area and wide area networks and the
internet). While widely used in private networks, this standard will more than likely
gain in significance for public use as standards for the internet evolve allowing for
guaranteed video quality.



Another standard that is beginning to make substantial inroads is H.310. This
standard dictates the way in which the MPEG encoding schemes inter-operate
together. MPEG and MPEG2 are encoding schemes often used on Asynchronous
Transfer 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 same
manufacturer (and in some cases model) can communicate with one another. One
example includes Tektronix J-Series equipment that operates using a protocol called
Motion 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 to
communicate with one another.

Technical Standards: System Interoperability

MPEG-2
H.323 0%
1% Unknown
33%

Analog
2%

M-JPEG
4%

H.320
60%

Figure 12 - Technical Standards: System Interoperability

Although there is a large percentage of sites for which the technical standards are
not known, it can be inferred from other data that a good portion of these sites are
H.320 compliant.

While very few (8 out of 1,375 identified sites) were listed as having H.323 compliant
videoconferencing equipment (operating via the internet and data networks), this
more than likely does not provide an accurate picture of the actual distribution of this
equipment. Because much of this gear is deployed in internal corporate networks
and used in households for personal videoconferencing applications, it is not
available for public use. Information regarding these systems would therefore not
have 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 Zip
Code



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

STANDARD TELECOM TYPICAL QUALITY COMPATABILITY ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES COST
MEDIUM APPLICATION

M-JPEG FIBER Distance Learning High Quality & Can only connect to other Extremely reliable and Connections with other Flat rate ~
MPEG 2 DS-3 Reliable sites using the same easy to use sites limited only to those $1,800 to
Analog (NTSC) Coaxial Cable Telemedicine technology on the same on the same network. 3,000/mo
Broadcast network. Can connect multiple unlimited usage
Multi-site Television Quality sites
Interactive Typically used for
Programs dedicated networks
connecting several sites in
the same geographic
region

H.320 ISDN or Videoconference Good Quality Can connect with any Universal connectivity Requires additional Usage sensitive
Switched 56 Meetings, H.320 compatible system equipment and services
Via Public Training, Virtual worldwide Uses existing public for multi-point Flat rate ~ $60 to
Switched Field Trips, Video network with familiar videoconferencing 180/mo based on
Telephone Arraignments dialing scheme bandwidth used
Network Usage costs can add up
quick with frequent, Usage
extended calls $20-75/hr

H.323 Ethernet/ Personal Quality Can connect with any Can turn almost any Requires significant Uses existing
IP Network Videoconferencin determined by H.323 user connected via desktop computer into network management Internal
g via internet bandwidth local IP network or via an a videoconferencing oversight to guarantee corporate data
available on the Internet connection system bandwidth networks or
Internal corporate network for video Internet
videoconferencin transmission Can not guarantee quality connection
g via data over Internet connections
network

Figure 14 - Summary of Videoconferencing Transmission Technologies



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

% of Sites Connected to a Dedicated “Closed-circuit”
100
Network Only

% of Sites with Dial-up Capabilities
80

60

40

20

0
PA MS WV AL OH TN KY GA SC NC MD NY VA

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



2.5 Bridging
Bridging allows for three or more videoconferencing sites to communicate
simultaneously in a session together. Bridging can be achieved in a variety of ways
depending on the type of technology that is being used for videoconferencing. Some
of 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 device
called a multipoint conferencing unit (MCU). In this scenario, separate
videoconferencing units typically “dial-in” to a MCU. MCUs have multiple ports – the
number of ports determines how many outside systems can dial in. They also have
varying transmission speed capabilities – some can only operate at speeds of
128Kbs, others can operate at higher speeds, such as 384Kbs.

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

How participants view one another is also a function of the capabilities of the
particular model of MCU that is being used. Some MCUs can automatically detect
which site is speaking, keying in on audio signals, and will display the video image of
that site for the other participants. This image will continue to be displayed until
another 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 each
participant in one of the quadrants of the screen.

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

Site A Site C

MCU
CODEC CODEC

Site B Site D

CODEC CODEC

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



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

SITE SITE

TV
TV

TV TV TV TV

SITE
TV Network
Switch
TV TV
Scheduling
Computer
Throughout the ARC region, the various forms of bridging discussed above exist. In
the survey, respondents were asked if bridging capabilities existed for their system or
associated network. The chart below summarizes the responses.

Bridging Capabilities
Yes
22%

No Don't Know
58% 2%

No Response
18%

Figure 16 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Capabilities



In addition to indicating whether or not bridging exists, respondents were asked how
bridging is achieved. For example, does the facility maintain an MCU on site or do
they use an MCU located elsewhere? Typically there are hourly usage charges
associated with the use of an MCU located at a remote location. Many telephone
companies and private telecommunications businesses maintain MCUs and make
them available to organizations that desire multi-point capabilities for scheduled
meetings, training sessions, interviews, etc. The companies that offer bridging
facilities typically require reservations to be made ahead of time and charge an
hourly rate and possibly a set-up charge.

It is important to note that unlike switched (dial-up) bridging systems, dedicated
videoconferencing networks have bridging capabilities that can not be shared with
anyone 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 reflects
those sites for which information existed (does not include those sites that did not
respond to the survey).

Bridging Method
Own Bridge
20%
Dialing-in
No Response
42%
2%
Network Software
1%

Don't Know
4%
Scheduling Computer
31%

Figure 17 - Public Videoconferencing Site Bridging Methods

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



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



2.5 Videoconferencing Carriers
The telecommunications connections that allow the videoconferencing units to
intercommunicate can be provisioned by a number of different providers. These may
be telephone companies, cable companies, internet providers or private customer
wide area or local area networks. The service providers providing interconnectivity
throughout the ARC region are listed in the chart below.

Videoconferencing Carriers

Other
0% Public Telephone
Network
22% Private computer
network
2%
Cable
1%
Internet
0%
Satellite
Unknown 0%
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 other
data within each record that the vast majority of these sites employ the public
telephone network to establish telecommunications connectivity for
videoconferencing.

2.6 Transmission Speeds
While there are many different carriers that provide interconnectivity, there are even
more types of telecommunications lines that are provided by the service providers
that are used for videoconferencing. Some of the more common types of circuits are
discussed below.

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



of the video and audio. Generally speaking, modern videoconferencing units that
operate on an ISDN line also operate using the H.320 standard. Appalachian
Region-wide, 26% of the total identified units employed ISDN connections. It is
suspected that the majority of those sites for which the connection type was
unknown (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 of
56Kbs, instead of 128Kbs. Like ISDN, multiple switched 56 lines can be combined to
improve quality and systems using switched 56 typically operate on the H.320
standard. This means that ISDN users can connect to videoconferencing systems
using switched 56 and visa versa. As discussed earlier, the quality of the video and
audio 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 configured
to carry voice or data traffic. Many telephone companies allow purchasing of just
some of these individual channels, known as fractional T-1 access. T-1 lines are
sometimes referred to as DS1 lines.

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

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

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



The Internet – H.323 compliant videoconferencing systems are designed to work
with Internet Protocol (IP). If connecting to the internet, users can benefit from a high
speed internet connections – the faster the connection, the better. Unfortunately, no
matter how fast a connection a site has, this bandwidth can not be guaranteed as the
signals traverse scores of switches and routers that make up the internet connection
to the remote site. As is the case with other telecommunications services, you are
only as fast as the weakest link in the connection. Depending on the location of the
remote end and all of the equipment and services in between, you may have
acceptable quality video or poor quality. Standards bodies are currently working in an
attempt to solve these problems.

Cable Modem – A cable modem is a device designed to operate over cable TV lines
and offers speeds, usually to the internet, in the range of 5 to 10Mbs. Because the
coaxial cable used by cable TV provides much greater bandwidth than telephone
lines, 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 high
speed connectivity, typically to the internet, at speeds in the range of 1 to 6Mbs.
Unlike cable modems, however, DSL modems work on standard copper telephone
lines. The service is typically offered by internet service providers (ISPs) and
telephone companies and often competes with cable modem services offered by
cable television companies. The same issues related to the internet apply for DSL
access to the internet.

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



Transmission Speeds
ISDN (128Kbps)
2%

ISDN (384Kbps)
10%

ISDN (Unspecified)
Unknown 14%
52%

Broadband Fiber
7%
T-1
9%
Other
6%

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 of
each site proved the most accurate way of plotting the collected data, due to
variances in street names, numbers, and other address features. Each point on the
map represents a unique zip code, and each symbol indicates that at least one
videoconferencing system with that transmission speed is located within the
representative zip code.

Based on the data collected it is not possible to create a map that demonstrates all of
the various types of circuits available across the region. This would require a survey
of all companies providing telecommunications services in Appalachia including local
exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, cable television companies,
etc. With the increase of competition within this market in recent years, this
information is often considered to be strategically significant by these companies and
they 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 Type
A diverse array of organizations, from institutions of higher education to state
governmental agencies to small businesses, employ videoconferencing for a variety
of purposes. In this study, each of the 1,375 public videoconferencing sites found
within the ARC region was classified in 1 of 4 sectors/organization types. These
sectors included:

• Government/Public/Non-Profit – including a range of local, regional, state and
federal government agencies; public service agencies such as police
departments and courts; and miscellaneous not for profit organizations. The
Local Development Districts with in-house videoconferencing capabilities
were included in this category. Interactive video is used for a variety of
purposes in this sector including distance training sessions, meetings and
arraignments via videoconference.

• Health – This category includes hospitals, clinics and health administration
groups associated with the medical community in the Appalachian Region.
Videoconferencing is used for a variety of purposes including administrative
meetings, continuing medical education and telemedicine. For the purpose of
this study, telemedicine includes the various forms of “dynamic imaging”
involving the provision of interactive, two-way healthcare services via
videoconferencing. 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 private
industries from small businesses to large corporations. All sites in this
category are for profit companies associated with the commercial sector. The
most frequent usage of videoconferencing in business is for meetings. Other
uses include training, recruitment and customer relations.

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

Some videoconferencing sites spanned multiple categories. For example, teaching
hospitals are associated with both the Health and Education sectors. In these
instances, a judgement was made (on a case-by-case basis) and the organization
was 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

Government/Public/
Non-profit
9%
Education
68%

Health
11%

Business
12%

Figure 25 - Public Videoconferencing Site Organization Types

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

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

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

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

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



Government/Public/Non-Profit Sector Videoconferencing – While there are fewer
sites in this sector than the others, the distribution of sites in this category are also
fairly evenly spread. Alabama has many videoconferencing systems within county
offices 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 Region
by 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 Equipment
Each videoconferencing site was asked to provide a list of equipment above and
beyond 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 ancillary
equipment is provided below.

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

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

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

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

Auxiliary Inputs: Virtually all systems have auxiliary video and audio jacks that allow
for 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 for
the publicly accessible database. Because this information is site specific, it is not
summarized here.

4. Key Observations Regarding Public Site Information

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

• There appears to be a concentration of public videoconferencing sites in the
northern states of the Appalachian Regional Commission, including
Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland. It should be noted that while efforts were
made to be as thorough as possible in the collection of data, it is possible that
information for these states was simply better documented and/or available and
thus 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 are
grouped together, without videoconferencing capabilities.

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

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

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



B. Local Development Districts

1. Introduction
To ensure that funds are used effectively and efficiently, and to strengthen local
participation, ARC works with the states to support a network of multi-county planning and
development 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 is
to identify priority needs of local communities. Based on these needs, the LDDs work with
their board members and other local citizens to develop plans for their communities'
economic development, to target and meet the most pressing needs, and to build
community unity and leadership.3

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

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

A two-step plan was carried-out to collect information from the LDDs. First, a series of
interviews were completed in the Discovery Period with selected ARC and LDD personnel.
The purpose of these interviews was to collect information to determine the most
appropriate 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 all
71 LDDs (at a 100% completion rate). The survey evaluated each LDD's current
videoconferencing capabilities, uses and needs, as well as the suitability of the technology
to meet current communication requirements. Separate questions were posed to those
LDDs 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% of
the LDDs maintain their own, in-house systems, while 59% of the LDDs use
videoconferencing facilities located elsewhere. The publicly available systems used by this
group of LDDs were tracked and logged in the database for the public site portion of the
study. 23% of the LDDs indicated that they do not use videoconferencing at all as a means
of communicating.

LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities

Do Not Use At All
23%

Use
Videoconferencing
Elsewhere
59% In-House
Videoconferencing
18%

Figure 31 - LDD Videoconferencing Capabilities

The distribution of LDD videoconferencing usage is plotted on Map 8: LDD
Videoconferencing 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 several
questions related to their use of the technology, the frequency with which they use
videoconferencing and the type of technology they have in place. The frequency of
videoconferencing use among the LDDs is fairly typical of organizations that maintain one
videoconferencing unit in a single corporate site for communication to the outside world.

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

LDD in-house frequency of use

6-10 times/month
8%

3-5 times/month
61% 11+ times/month
8%

0-2 times/month
23%

Figure 33 - LDD In-House Frequency of Use

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

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



Primary System Uses

Other
5%

Meetings and
Workshops and Planning
Conferences 52%
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 in
place for the public to use their videoconferencing system. Each LDD responded that it is
only necessary to call ahead of time to schedule use of their systems. Most did not have a
set schedule of availability in place, but instead, will allow public use of the system
whenever 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.320
compliant systems. As explained earlier, an H.320 system permits the dial-up of any other
H.320 system, regardless of manufacturer or transmission speed. One LDD was unsure of
the system manufacturer or the transmission speed/type of their system – thus it was not
possible to determine whether this system was H.320 compliant. The remaining sites
indicated that their systems used ISDN connections of various speeds (from 128 Kbs to 384
Kbs) with one LDD indicating that they connect via a T-1 circuit (1544 Kbs).



Equipment Manufacturers
VComm
8%

GE
8%
PictureTel
61% unknown
8%

V-Tel
15%

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 their
organization, however, have an occasional need for this capability and go elsewhere to use
it. The majority of LDDs (27 of 42, or 64%) without in-house videoconferencing systems that
use videoconferencing elsewhere reported that the primary reason for using it is for ARC
training. It appears that the sessions offered by the ARC are a major driver for
videoconferencing use among the LDDs.

Primary use of other systems

Meetings
31%

ARC Training
64% Seminars
5%

Figure 36 - LDD Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere

This group of LDDs was also asked how often they use videoconferencing. The
overwhelming 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

3-10 times/year
21%

10+ times/year
5%
0-2 times/year
72% unknown
2%

Figure 37 - LDD Frequency of Use of Videoconferencing Systems Elsewhere

These LDDs were also asked if a fee was charged to use videoconferencing facilities which
they employ for these sessions. The responses to this question varied widely from nominal
room fees of $50.00 up to $500.00 which included use of the facility all day and technical
support. Many LDDs were unsure if they were charged a fee to use a videoconferencing
system. As the responses to this question were based on individual experiences, there is
no 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 LDDs
fell 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 telecommunications
technologies that support videoconferencing were unavailable in their geographic region.
The remaining 75% indicated that they had no need for videoconferencing, the technology
was too challenging from a technical perspective or too expensive.



Reasons for not using a system
Not Available
25%

Too Challenging
19% No Need
43%

Too Expensive
13%

Figure 38 - LDD Reasons for Not Using Videoconferencing

This group was then asked to classify their level of knowledge of videoconferencing. Of the
16 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

Little Knowledge
38%

Some Knowledge
49%

No Response
13%

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

These LDDs were also asked if they would use videoconferencing if it were made available
to 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?
No
25%

Maybe
19%
Yes
50%
No Response
6%

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 the
LDD survey data. Each is identified below for further treatment in the Analysis and
Recommendations 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 videoconferencing
systems, but use public videoconferencing facilities located elsewhere – making the
outcome of the public videoconferencing site analysis important.

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

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

• The LDDs that use public videoconferencing facilities located elsewhere use
videoconferencing 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 a
significant percentage of the usage of the LDD’s videoconferencing systems.



• Of the LDDs that do not currently use videoconferencing, 75% indicated reasons other
than the unavailability of telecommunications and videoconferencing technology. The
knowledge and understanding of videoconferencing technology and applications is
limited and may be due to a lack of exposure to the technology. Only one half of this
group indicated that they would use videoconferencing if given to them and available for
free.



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 economies
will be information-based economies. The explosive growth of the internet and other
communications technologies clearly point to a future based upon information technologies
as 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 Labor
estimates that at least 44% of all workers this year will be in information technology services
industries.

The ability of a region to compete economically will largely depend upon the ability of the
region 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 the
Appalachian Region as a whole in the new century. Traditionally, areas of high economic
distress have been deprived of many of the advancements that have taken place in
telecommunications technology and infrastructure. Companies have focused
telecommunications infrastructure development dollars in the high population urban areas
where a better return on investment is likely.

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

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

In the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania, for example, the extremely poor coverage for cellular
telecommunications services was highly correlated with a general lack of understanding of
wireless 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 to
remain in wireless contact with the rest of the world.4

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

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

State Field Total ARC Total Distressed Percentage of Distressed
Counties in State Counties Counties 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 & Development
Commission, 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 Appalachian 406 111 27%
Region

In this section, an examination of the level of access to videoconferencing in Appalachia is
presented from several perspectives. The concept of “access” to videoconferencing is
difficult 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 as
the perspective of regional populations (how many people can have access to a given
videoconferencing site?), a geographic perspective (how easily can people reach a
given videoconferencing site?), etc.

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

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

In this section, an attempt has been made to examine access to videoconferencing from
these various perspectives. Areas of economic distress are central to the examination
presented here. Where possible, comparisons have been made to illustrate differences and
evaluate 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 inverse
relationship exists between the relative concentration of distressed counties within each
state and the relative concentration of videoconferencing sites.

The chart below demonstrates this relationship. The bars on the left-hand portion of the
chart 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. The
bars on the right-hand portion of the chart reflect the relative concentration of distressed
Appalachian counties within each state, as reflected in the chart above.

States like Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania have a high concentration of
videoconferencing 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 high
concentration of distressed counties.

Average Number of Videoconferencing Sites per County
vs. Percentage of Distressed Counties within State

Alabama
Georgia
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Average # of Videoconferencing Percentage of ARC Counties
Sites per County Considered Distressed in State

Figure 41- Comparison of Sites per County and Distressed Counties

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



1. Persons per Videoconferencing Site

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

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

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

Perhaps contrary to what would be expected, many of the distressed counties have a better
person to videoconferencing site ratio than non-distressed counties. The state-wide
analyses of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania all indicate that,
in general, there are more people to videoconferencing sites in non-distressed counties in
these states than in the distressed counties. The trend is reversed in Tennessee (rather
significantly), Virginia and West Virginia. Taken as a whole, the Appalachian region has
approximately 15% more persons per site in distressed counties than in non-distressed
counties.

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

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



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

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

State Persons per Persons per Percentage Increase of
Videoconferencing Videoconferencing Persons per Site in
Site (Non-distressed Site (Distressed Distressed vs. Non-
Counties) Counties) 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 ARC 15,995 18,393 15%
Region
** 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.



Persons per Videoconferencing Site

90,000 Legend
Distressed Counties
80,000 Non-Distressed Counties

70,000

60,000
Population

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
Tennessee

West Virginia

Ohio

North Carolina

Total ARC Region

Mississippi

Kentucky

Virginia

Alabama

Pennsylvania

Georgia

South Carolina

New York

Maryland
State

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

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

2. Square Mileage Analysis

To fail to account for the geographic concentration of videoconferencing facilities is to fail to
account for the primary benefit of videoconferencing – to eliminate the need for travel and to
break down the barriers of geography. If one has to travel several hours to reach a
videoconferencing 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 of
videoconferencing to be realized, the facilities to be used must be close-by.
This is central to measuring the “divide” in access between economically distressed rural
areas and economically stable populated regions.



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

In an attempt to evaluate the relative dispersion of public videoconferencing sites and
geographic relationships, the square mileage of counties was used as a benchmark
measure. The analysis provides excellent insight to the geographic concentration of sites in
Appalachia.

Square mileage readings of each of the 406 counties of Appalachia were taken and
compared with the number of videoconferencing sites within each county. Square mileage
was obtained from ArcView GIS, in standard geographic datasets provided by
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI).

It is important to note that the analysis is conducted at the county level and therefore does
not 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 by
zip code – but rather reflects the less detailed view provided in Map 2 which reflects sites by
county.

The chart below represents the relative concentration of videoconferencing sites using
square mileage per videoconferencing site as the basis for the analysis. The square miles
per 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), the
greater the geographic distance between sites – implying an inferior access to
videoconferencing.

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



State Square Miles per Square Miles per Percentage Increase of
Videoconferencing Videoconferencing Square Miles per Site in
Site (Non-distressed Site (Distressed Distressed vs. Non-
Counties) Counties) 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 ARC 124 345 178%
Region
** In the two distressed counties of North Carolina, there are no (quantity of 0)
videoconferencing sites. This figure represents the entire square mileage of these
counties.

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

In short, the videoconferencing sites that are available in distressed counties are few and far
between – dispersed thinly over a significant geographic expanse. While the population in
many 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 access
corresponds to where they live and the relative economic condition of their county.

Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site

1800 Legend
Distressed Counties
1600 Non-Distressed Counties

1400

1200
Square Miles

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Tennessee

North Carolina

West Virginia

Mississippi

Alabama

Ohio

Total ARC Region

Kentucky

Virginia

Georgia

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

New York

Maryland

State

The graph below provides a comparison of the results of the previous two analyses on a
Figure 43 - Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site

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

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

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



West Virginia
(Distressed 47%)

Virginia
(Distressed 22%)

Tennessee
(Distressed 20%)

Pennsylvania
(Distressed 4%)

Ohio
(Distressed 31%)

North Carolina
(Distressed 7%)

Mississippi
(Distressed 59%)
Percentage increase in Distressed
Kentucky Counties over Non-distressed Counties
(Distressed 80%) in Square Miles per Site

Percentage increase in Distressed
Georgia
Counties over Non-distressed Counties
(Distressed 3%)
in Persons per Site

Alabama
(Distressed 8%)

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

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



C. Access to Videoconferencing by Population

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

1. Counties with greater than 200,000 people
2. Counties with 90,000 to 200,000 people
5. Counties with less than 10,000 people

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

The graphs below demonstrate the differences between persons per videoconferencing site
and 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 and
square miles per site. As in the previous analyses, persons per videoconferencing site
shows little variance with fewer individuals per site in the counties with less than 10,000
people.

Persons per Videoconferencing Site (All Counties)

25,000

20,000
Persons per Site

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
>200,000 90,000 to 30,000 to 10,000 to <10,000
199,999 89,999 29,999
County Population Category

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



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

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

Square Mileage per Videoconferencing Site (All Counties)

600

500

400
Square Miles

300

200

100

0
>200,000 90,000 to 199,999 30,000 to 89,999 10,000 to 29,999 <10,000

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

It is important to note that because of the concentrations of distressed counties, it is not
possible to control for the “distress” variable in this analysis – and thus examine population
in isolation. While distressed and non-distressed counties are grouped together into their
appropriate population category, generally speaking, as the population goes down, the
number of distressed counties goes up as evidenced in chart below. Nonetheless, the
evaluation confirms the results of the previous analysis – that the less populated, rural
counties have fewer videoconferencing systems that are located geographically farther apart
from one another than more populated regions.



Percentage of Distressed Percentage of Non-
Counties 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 the
Appalachian Region, the concentration of the various industry sectors that maintain public
videoconferencing sites was assessed based on the sector definitions described in Section
3 of this report. The results are summarized in the charts below.

As expected, the number of business-related commercial sites drops off in distressed
counties when compared with non-distressed counties. This is undoubtedly due to a number
of 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 of
industries located in distressed economic areas are less likely to have a need for
videoconferencing.

Also to be expected, business outreach centers are limited in less populated areas when
compared with urban areas. Commercial sites that rent videoconferencing facilities for profit
have 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 with
one organization in one location. Big Sandy Telecommuting Services, Inc. (BSTSI) of
Pikeville, Kentucky in Pike County is listed as having four systems in this one location. If this
one organization is removed from the equation, the distressed counties are left with no
(quantity 0) business-related videoconferencing sites throughout the entire Appalachian
Region.

While these results are not surprising, it does underscore the fact that videoconferencing will
most 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 and
health care) to develop videoconferencing facilities and services.

Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within
Distressed Counties

Government
7%
Education
80%

Health
10%

Business
3%

Figure 47 - Organization Types of Videoconferencing Sites within Distressed Counties

Organization Type of Videoconferencing Sites in Non-
Distressed Counties
Government
9%

Education
Health
67%
11%

Business
13%

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



E. Areas Where Videoconferencing Does Not Exist

A total of 119 of the 406 counties (29%) of the Appalachian Region were identified as having
no videoconferencing facilities at all (quantity 0). As in the other analyses, there is a direct
correlation between population and whether or not videoconferencing facilities exist. As
graph below depicts, the percentage of counties without videoconferencing facilities rises
sharply as the population of counties decreases. This again confirms that the counties with
smaller populations (and a higher level of distress by correlation) have less access to
videoconferencing than those counties with larger populations.

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

Percentage of Counties with no Videoconferencing Sites

70%

60%

50%
Percentage of Counties

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
>200,000 90,000 to 199,999 30,000 to 89,999 10,000 to 29,999 <10,000

Figure 49 - Percentage of Counties with No Videoconferencing Sites

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

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



Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing

70%

60%

50%
Percentage

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
New York

Ohio
Maryland

Georgia
Virginia

Mississippi
Alabama

Tennessee
Pennsylvania

North Carolina

West Virginia
Kentucky
South Carolina

Total ARC REgion
State

Figure 50 - Percentage of Total Counties without Videoconferencing

To gain insight into the impact this has on communities, the population of individuals without
videoconferencing in their counties was assessed on a state-by-state basis. While in many
states 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, a
very significant portion of the population appears to be without videoconferencing in their
home county (such as Mississippi 24%, North Carolina 29%, Tennessee 23% and West
Virginia 37%).

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



Population Percentage without Videoconferencing

40%

Population Percentage 35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

South Carolina
Pennsylvania

North Carolina
Total ARC Region
Alabama

Maryland

Georgia

Tennessee
New York

Virginia

West Virginia
Kentucky
Ohio

Mississippi
State

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

F. Local Development Districts

In an attempt to understand how the availability of videoconferencing may effect usage by
the Local Development Districts, information pertaining to LDD use of videoconferencing
was compared with the information presented in the analyses above. The graph below
shows the relative availability of videoconferencing within each territory by categorizing
LDDs into one of three groups: Those LDDs that have 5 or more videoconferencing facilities
within their region, those that have 2-5 videoconferencing facilities and those that have 2
sites or fewer. For each of these groupings, an assessment was made for the percentage of
LDDs that own their own in-house videoconferencing facilities, the percentage that use
videoconferencing facilities elsewhere and the percentage that do not use
videoconferencing 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 in
each region – however, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between actual use of
videoconferencing and availability of the technology.

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



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

It would be expected that in areas where public videoconferencing facilities are less
available (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 equipment
would be higher. This is not the case. In fact, the use of videoconferencing facilities
elsewhere is extremely high (73% for LDD’s with 2-5 sites in their territory and 67% for
LDD’s with 2 or less sites in their territory) and the ownership of in-house equipment drops
significantly.

As expected, in areas where videoconferencing is unavailable (LDD’s with 2 or fewer sites in
their 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 LDDs
with 5 or more sites).

100%
90%
80% Own In-house
70% Videoconferencing
60% System
Use Videoconferencing
50%
Elsewhere
40%
30% No Use of
20% Videoconferencing

10%
0%
LDDs w ith 2 LDDs w ith LDDs w ith 5
or Less 2-5 Sites in or More
Sites in Territory Sites in
Territory Territory

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



When the grouping of LDDs that own their own videoconferencing systems is examined and
compared with those LDDs that use videoconferencing facilities elsewhere and those LDDs
that do not use videoconferencing at all, the distinction is even more apparent. The graph
below demonstrates that the LDDs that maintain their own videoconferencing equipment are
located in areas that have a far greater number of videoconferencing facilities with their
counties.

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

Average Sites per County

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
In-house Use Elsewhere No Use

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



Section 5 - Recommendations

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

The overarching goal of implementing these recommendations is to set in motion an
aggressive, irreversible dynamic in each county and for the Appalachian Region as a whole;
one in which an enhanced videoconferencing infrastructure leads to increased
videoconferencing usage and development which, in turn, encourages additional
videoconferencing 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 apply
to telecommunications technology in general.

Specific to videoconferencing, the LDDs and the ARC must focus on activities that capitalize
on the potential of the medium for addressing specific communications needs and/or solving
specific communications problems. This of course assumes that interactive video technology
can 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 regular
basis. It can be inferred from this group of LDDs that the level of use of videoconferencing
corresponds directly to the practical value of the technology in solving specific
communications problems or satisfying specific requirements for communicating with
outside entities.

For example, several LDDs in the state of Pennsylvania that use videoconferencing
frequently mentioned regular videoconferences with foreign companies that are part of an
international export program. Another LDD indicated use of the system 3 to 4 days a week
for a variety of purposes including a court reporting class via distance learning. In almost all
cases, LDDs that use their systems far less often (a few times a year) could not site specific
examples 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. Among
organizations that use videoconferencing, if there is not a very specific application (or set of
applications) that drive the use of the equipment, then the equipment will more than likely sit
idle.

Often there is a perception or an expectation on the part of organizations that the technology
itself will provide the applications and desired value. This line of thought is not inconsistent
with other technology acquisitions. For example, one has certain expectations when
obtaining a subscription to cable television. The value is understood and no additional work
beyond 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 acquire
videoconferencing without specific application, or set of applications in mind (i.e. weekly
meetings with a development agency five counties away). Failure to make this distinction
sets in motion a negative cycle that has implications for the level of use of the system and
individuals’ perceptions of the technology.

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

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

In our estimation, there are several interrelated themes where organizations in Appalachia
should focus their attention and energies in order to bring about more and better
videoconferencing services and capabilities. While many of the recommendations in this
section address specific technical or organizational changes, equally important (if not more
so) are the recommendations addressing changes in the basic thinking and approach of
organizations regarding videoconferencing technology that are prerequisite to the successful
implementation and sustained use of the technology. These factors are extremely difficult to
address specifically because they involve changes to organizational culture, perception and
understanding. While these aspects are not concrete, it is our vehement belief that they form
the foundation for the continued creative use of the technology and will provide the seeds to
spawn 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 development
initiative. It is also the foundation on which the success of the remaining recommendations
in this section depends. Clear lines of communication must be established and opportunities
must be discovered and/or created that utilize the unique features of videoconferencing in
tearing down geographic barriers. Appropriate forums should be developed for the
exchange of information so that videoconferencing users and potential users can discuss
their needs and so that groups and individuals having common needs can be identified and
begin working together.

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

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

On a region-wide basis, the Appalachian Regional Commission has led the effort in the
development and advancement of videoconferencing and telecommunications. Among
these activities include the development and funding of many strategic telecommunications
initiatives, the implementation of regional telecommunications projects, the creation of
committees and working groups focusing on telecommunications, the sponsorship of
conferences, workshops and other events – as well as the initiation and funding of studies
such as this one.

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



barriers of geography, travel and time. Increased exposure to the technology will promote
increased awareness of videoconferencing technology, its applications, benefits and
potential.

Participation must be global, however, with a greater diversity of organizations contributing
voices and ideas to increase the value of the partnership. One of the basic tenets of a
network is that the value of the network is directly proportional to the number of users that
can communicate on the network. It is recommended that the DDAA play a more direct role
in the development of videoconferencing programming, for educational enrichment and
ongoing communication to and among the Local Development Districts. Successful
development of quality training and programs that use videoconferencing technology will
require the organizational insights and leadership of the DDAA. Essential is the DDAA’s
understanding of the big picture issues, challenges and day-to-day difficulties faced by the
LDDs. Needed is coordination and leadership to organize and facilitate communication
between 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 consider
how technology – be it videoconferencing or other information technologies – may mitigate
the current communications challenges faced today. While this is very broad, it will be the
most difficult of these recommendations to implement. It will require thinking outside the box
– rethinking everyday processes, overcoming long held habits and realizing that many
things that have been assumed to be limitations are not necessarily limitations when today’s
technology is applied creatively. When solving problems or planning, LDDs must begin to
get in the habit of asking themselves: How can technology help? Are there other
organizations, or other LDDs that are experiencing a similar situation that we could work
with collaboratively via technology?

LDD Awareness of Videoconferencing. – It was also apparent from our investigation of the
LDDs that some LDD organizations do not have a good understanding of
videoconferencing, including the applications in which the technology is used and the
benefits. Clearly, this level of awareness is prerequisite to the action items discussed in this
section. More than likely, this will be an on-going process, with a select group of pioneering
organizations taking a leadership role in the development of content and other (less
pioneering) organizations joining in later as they become aware of the use and
demonstrated benefits of technology-mediated communications. As stated above, it is
recommended 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 promoted
on 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 discuss
telecommunications issues and needs. A good number of examples exist today. A recent
conference sponsored by the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development
Board (Western New York), “Gateway to the Millennium: Technological Applications for a
Competitive 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 can
be posted electronically, are other avenues to pursue. Such initiatives would be a big step
toward facilitating an information exchange for videoconferencing users to communicate
with one another on a daily basis.

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

Internet forums already exist and are frequently used among the LDDs, DDAA and ARC.
Topics related to videoconferencing or programs delivered via videoconferencing may be
able to be incorporated into the existing ARC web page or the existing listserve that
currently 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 from
users and improved pricing for equipment and services have created more opportunities and
pitfalls for organizations than ever before. The successful navigation of this stormy sea
holds great promise for securing the necessary infrastructure and obtaining competitive
pricing for videoconferencing.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other deregulatory initiatives have opened the
door for increased competition in the telecommunications market. New players have
emerged who are now challenging the incumbent service providers with cheaper and more
advanced 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 more
competition than ever, with new companies able to provide the circuits employed for



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

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

While competition in the local exchange has not yet reached many regions of rural
Appalachia, the affects of competition are significant in the areas where it has. In some
cases, new services that support videoconferencing, such as ISDN, DSL and high speed
internet connections have become available. The increased service options have prompted
defensive responses from incumbent carriers, forcing them to upgrade services and lower
prices.

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

In addition to falling service costs, the one-time equipment costs have also dropped
dramatically in the last several years. The introduction of new technology, stiffer competition
and a range of scalable options, from small set-top boardroom systems to larger roll-about
systems, 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 that
maintain videoconferencing systems, the time is ripe to reconsider existing
telecommunications services, including services dedicated for videoconferencing.
Organizations that have not implemented videoconferencing because the
telecommunications services needed to support the technology have not been available or
because 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 services
needed 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 essential
technology 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 denied
access to ISDN services as are RBOC customers in many rural geographies. For these
locations, there may be options available.

Technically, it is possible to extend ISDN to these locations from a remote telephone
company office that has the service. This requires that a type of circuit called a foreign
exchange circuit be established and requires the cooperation of the two offices (which may
or 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 will
be higher than if a single company provided the service. Usually, however, telephone
companies will work with customers to establish such special arrangements.

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

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

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

Cooperative Bids − Another strategy for obtaining services and equipment at better costs is
for multiple organizations to join together to bid for services or equipment. Most
organizations maintain independent service plans with telecommunications companies or
procure 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 telephone
services across organizations or for joint purchasing equipment in larger quantities. Again,
such collaborations can be quite valuable, but require good communication between
organizations. As discussed previously, this level of communication may be facilitated via
information technologies and videoconferencing.

Another excellent option for many public organizations are state or municipal contracts for
telecommunications equipment or services that public organizations can buy from. States
will typically bid for services and equipment on behalf of all state agencies through the state
Office of General Services (OGS) or Department of Administrative Services (DAS). A
multitude of telecommunications equipment and services may be available. In New York
State, for example, the following equipment and services related to videoconferencing are
available 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 OGS
contract can subscribe to an ISDN service offered by AT&T operating at 384Kbs. This
service is suitable for those organizations with needs for applications such as
videoconferencing and is available for $104 per month, with an attractive usage charge. In
addition to the low cost, the service can be extended to any location in New York State via a
dedicated T-1 circuit (no charge in addition to the $104/month) regardless of the availability
of ISDN or carrier (see Extending ISDN Coverage above). Similar contracts are available
from the Ohio Department of Administrative Services and many other states in the
Appalachian Region.

In other areas of Appalachia, organizations have used these techniques creatively to
promote the betterment of the telecommunications infrastructure within their areas. For
example, Golden Triangle Planning & Development District in Mississippi has positioned
itself using telecommunications services available via the state as an internet service
provider, extending services throughout its seven-county region. Similar initiatives, whether
collaborative efforts on the part of multiple agencies or initiatives facilitated by a single
agency, 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 set
of standard technical specifications, so they can communicate with systems made by other
manufacturers. These technical standards are equivalent to languages in the world of
people. A videoconferencing device that employs a particular technical standard to
communicate 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 it
is the standard for point-to-point videoconferencing using the public switched network via
ISDN or Switched 56.

In the Appalachian Region, 60% to 90% of the videoconferencing systems identified were
H.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 and
the wide availability of public switched access facilities, it is the recommendation of the
Myers Group that this standard be designated as the common platform for initiatives
promoting interconnection of videoconferencing systems. This builds upon and reinforces
the ARC’s current program of promoting technology and standards that allow for
interconnection. We recommend that this policy be continued with H.320 being the standard
for 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 private
corporate networks and not widely available as a public use technology. This standard will
undoubtedly gain in significance for public use when standards for the internet evolve
allowing for guaranteed video quality. As of this writing, such standards do not exist and the
public switched network, being ubiquitously available, is by far the most likely medium for
the interoperability of the installed base of equipment in Appalachia.

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



Site B

CODEC

Site A CODEC CODEC Site C

CODEC

Gateway
CODEC

Site D Public
Telephone
Network

Remote Site

CODEC

Where it is practical and where there is a demonstrated need for interconnection to outside
locations in “closed-circuit”-type networks, it is the recommendation of The Myers Group that
these gateways be established. Creation of a shared gateway is an extremely cost-effective
way of leveraging resources, opening-up the benefits of dial-up videoconferencing to a large
number 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 gateways
installed, these networks are able to run their independent schedule of distance learning



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

The ARC may play a role in funding these gateways where there is a demonstrated need
and 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 public
switched 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 dedicated
networks, each dependent upon the network configuration, type of technology in place and
the contract conditions negotiated with the carrier providing the service. For the purposes of
estimating the cost for establishing such a gateway, the Myers Group has developed rough
cost estimates based on one possible configuration of a network gateway for a broadband
network. These costs are presented below:

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

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

There are additional on-going costs with the establishment of a compressed video gateway
as well. For the purposes of estimation, three ISDN BRI lines providing 384Kbs connectivity
will cost, on average, $135 per month ($45 per line) plus usage. These costs will vary widely
from one state to another and from one service provider to another however. Usage is
typically equivalent to the normal business rate for a telephone call (add long distance
charges 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 ubiquitously
throughout Appalachia, nor are they dispersed equitably. Gaps in telecommunications
service availability exist, as do variations in the level of knowledge, understanding and need
of the technology of the people of Appalachia. It is our belief that a videoconferencing
development strategy that accounts for these elements is best suited for Appalachia. To
these ends, The Myers Group recommends that initiatives centered on videoconferencing
technology 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 the
information compiled in this study on known videoconferencing sites be made widely
available, not only to the LDDs, but also to the public at large. Only with the active use of
this 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 videoconferencing
facilities available in Appalachia; and as stated before, this information is only as complete
as the returned survey responses received. The information is highly dynamic, changing
constantly as organizations acquire new videoconferencing equipment and update existing
systems.

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

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

Ideally, each web page interface on all LDD web sites relating to videoconferencing will be
the same, allowing for ease of navigation on the part of users. It is also recommended that
an index of hyperlinks to LDD pages for videoconferencing be maintained on the web pages
of 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 additional
hyperlinks in the “Local Development Districts in the Appalachian Region” pages of the
current ARC web page.

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

Focus on Shared Resources – The economic benefits of sharing facilities are clear. In this
section, we have already discussed the benefits of sharing a videoconferencing gateway
among several organizations. From a technical perspective, it is not much different than
sharing a printer on an office computer network. The value of the printer is increased
because more people can gain access to it. Because a printer is not a device that is needed
for large contiguous periods of time by any one person, it makes sense to share it with
others 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 blocks
by an organization throughout the day. With this in mind, The Myers Group recommends
that opportunities for sharing equipment be explored.

In many areas of Appalachia, Business Outreach Centers and Community Access Centers
have been established to assist local businesses and communities with basic services to
assist in the economic development of regions. These organizations are known by several
names including “Community Technology Centers” and “Neighborhood Networks” and
funded through many different agencies including the ARC, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and many others. Often
included among the resources provided are services related to technology, such as
computer usage/training and cooperative technology purchasing.

The mission of these organizations dovetail with the intent of the recommendations of this
report in that the sharing of technological resources is encouraged with a focus on modern
technology to solve practical problems. Videoconferencing technology can be yet another
tool in reaching out to establish new relationships with other businesses and in new
markets. The ARC and other agencies may play a role in funding videoconferencing
facilities in these centers in cases where there is value in bringing enhanced
videoconferencing services to a region. These centers may be good targets in regions
where 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 in
videoconferencing 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 additional
insight to the availability of videoconferencing facilities in the region.

As stated previously, the information represents a “best-effort” in compiling all information
within the Appalachian Region. The information is only as complete as the number and
thoroughness of completed surveys and the degree of cooperation of regional entities in
helping to identify potential videoconferencing sites. The Myers Group is aware of some
specific regions where the data compiled is questionable. It is clear to us that
videoconferencing facilities in Tennessee and North Carolina are undercounted. In these
cases, network administrators or officials were reluctant, or refused outright to share
information regarding network sites. We believe that other states are also underrepresented
due 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 missing
information and maintain videoconferencing information regarding their counties. Clearly the
LDDs have an advantage over the ARC or an outside group in that there are established
relationships and understandings within each region as well as a far greater familiarity with
the local goings-on of these communities.

Regardless, the information presented here should serve as a guide for the identification of
areas in high need for videoconferencing technology. In the interest of promoting equity and
bridging the digital divide in Appalachia, it is recommended that these high need areas be
targeted for development provided that there are organizations in the area with a
demonstrated 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 sector
dramatically differs from one to the next. Educational institutions offer the most equitable
distribution of videoconferencing sites, but the concentration of business, government and
health sites range greatly – each showing large gaps in services. Sector-specific strategies
for developing videoconferencing may also be encouraged. For example, regional
telemedicine networks or initiatives among hospitals may be encouraged through preferred
grant funding in areas where services are lacking.

Focus on the Likelihood of Sustained Use – Perhaps the most difficult challenge faced by
those who wish to develop videoconferencing services is in gauging the potential for
continued use of the technology by organizations. The essence of this recommendation
boils down to the understanding of videoconferencing on the part of organizations that
intend to use it; their understanding of what it is, and what it is not. As stated previously, it is
imperative that organizations understand that videoconferencing is a tool and not a service
that can stand on its own.



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

Organizations that do not understand videoconferencing will often talk of the potential for
videoconferencing use. They imagine the possible uses of the equipment. Rather than
specific applications, they indicate that the technology will come in handy for meetings and
training. They talk about how videoconferencing will solve their problems and may have a
difficult 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.



Videoconferencing Survey

Appendices

December 2000

133 Front Street
Vestal, NY 13850
TEL 607 754-5037
FAX 607 754-6975
www.myersgroup.com
info@myersgroup.com

Section 1: Project Overview

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Section 1: Project Overview (20)

More from Videoguy (20)

Section 1: Project Overview