State Networks

From ConnectivityStudy
Jump to: navigation, search

Note to Readers: I have copied and pasted from emails sent around on this issue. This page needs to be formatted. Perhaps a summary created? Mark


My observations in Missouri (especially in the Friday evening "bar" interviews)and in other venues, is that little or no secession planning is going on in these library and state networks. If we are truly to look at "sustainability" then we should provide for the development of new leaders for the library tech. community and the state networks. However, the "replacement" leaders should also have the collaborative and visionary characteristics to lead these networks into the next generation - in the style that seems to be inherent to the most successful network leaders/developers now.

I'm betting that when this study is done, we will be able to identify a set of skills and styles found in the successful network leaders/developers that can be used as a basis for training new leaders. There are many in these state libraries and networks who are older babyboomers about to retire. While there may be some middle management ready to moveup, we did not necessarily see that. It was acknowledged by the current leaders that they are so busy doing it right, that they have not had time to think about or act upon developing "replacements" that can continue their networks - and better yet - find/build opportunities for new systems and applications.

Mission: to train network managers, directors as well as key participants, and insure leadership development that is based upon true collaboration. This is for local and state network developers - (sorry, no feds!)

Goal: develop a training environment - not for technology - but for management and leadership styles that foster collaboration, outreach, political savvy and strategic planning.

Project: Part 1 - plan and develop a proposal; include skills assessments of current leaders, involve staff development and sociology experts to advise, etc. etc. Convene groups to assess and seek seed funding to develop a pilot project. Emphasis on developing collaboration skills and teamwork from multi-type organizations.

Part 2 - fund pilot project with likely partners: a major university, ALA, library network directors, developers of state networks, other public and private partners like local government groups, e-government specialists, etc. and foundations. Conduct assessment; adjust as feasible.

Part 3 - develop a sustainable plan to provide and fund ongoing training services from this "institute" or "center" for public sector network development leaders.

Part 4 - institute plan on a cost-recovery basis.


April 2: Where library applications and online services are clear and seen as useful to users and communities, the buildout of broadband appears to be "somewhat" easier - or at least during the developmental stages of places like Missouri. As others have said on this wiki and elsewhere, "it's the content, stupid." As we promote, support and push for broadband ALA and others needs ever more examples of applications to sell broadband. LEB


Hey, I didn’t mean to throw you all into bouts of depression over this! I’ve got my own nasty stories that you don’t want to hear from being a campus CIO for a few years. (Including IBM going to the president and demanding I be fired because I didn’t recommend purchase of an IBM mainframe.) But, nasty or not, universities still need computers.

Here’s my perspective.

My take all starts with a really old, corny joke. Two campers in the north woods—near Bob Bocher’s digs—run into a grumpy bear. One camper sits down and begins changing his boots for running shoes. The other says, “You idiot, you’ll never outrun that bear.” The first one answers, “I don’t need to outrun the bear!”

My assumption is that ALL interventions we will possibly come up with are:

1: Mainly political, not technical; 2: Messy; 3: State-dependent; and 4: Incremental, not silver bullets—that is, they will improve, not solve the situation, and not do so equally well for all locations.

Our job is to identify ones that might “outrun” the others. The goal is not finding a perfect and painless solution, but digging around the box to find solutions that are less painful than others.

So, is it less painful for the state librarian to try to negotiate with a) the state network, b) the state governor and legislature, c) the state PUC, d) the phone companies, e) the FCC. or f) to sacrifice on the state capitol steps a live bull to the gods?

Even the answer to that question probably varies from state to state--with (f) being a promising approach for Iowa. We’re going to be looking in all directions (well, not the live bull thing. It’s not politically correct these days. Maybe an effigy.)

As for the patronizing tone from the state network guy, I’ve become used to it from the ed people in the e-rate wars, so it runs off my back. But, I understand Nancy’s frustration. All I can say is that, for a variety of reasons, most of these university based state networks essentially grew into k12 education networks. Some encourage libraries, some grudgingly allow libraries, some bar libraries from participation.

As for Internet2 speeds, I am less concerned about getting a gigabit on the last mile than I am getting affordable several megabits with an I2 capable backbone, and a few libraries experimenting with ultra high-speed connectivity. I have seen some very library-applicable uses for I2 speeds, and some experiments are ongoing. But, those applications also require sophisticated end-user technology and highly trained staff to implement. Few are turn-key, yet.

I'm going to California to talk with CENIC later this week to try to understand better why libraries are not users of that network. and how they work their funding. CalREN gets millions of dollars of e-rate $'s for K12 service.


Well said, Rick, and I would just say that the "is it less painful question" will also vary from state to state.

I believe the first step in all visits has to be a lengthy visit/meeting/conversation with the state library/librarian to determine where the hot spots are in their states and who's driving that train I referred to. Anything other than that could cause them damage by having project folks setting up meetings in their states a.) without their knowledge causing all kinds of potential state backlash b.) with the force that is a major stumbling block or the major train--either one could cause them more problems than help c.) that may impact current situations that may be delicate and d.) other like situations. At least by first visiting with the library, you will have some sense of where the politics are in that particular state and whether or not the library is "inside the tent" or "outside the tent."

With regard to CENIC, there are some very interesting issues/challenges as it relates to E-rate. You may wish to speak with K.G. and/or I can provide you with some information as well. There are state USF issues that impact the sequence of funding and there are procurement issues that can be problematic from an E-rate "most cost effective" solution requirement.



Tell me if I am crazy, here, but, coming back from the I2 meeting, I am more and more seeing the state networks as the key leverage points. We really are in the middle of quietly building a viable national research and education network (remember NREN?).

There are a growing number of I2 affiliated state nets, 38 now. They are being brought more closely into the I2 fold, being offered full membership. And, most if not all have already connected the K12 institutions in their states. Libraries would seem to be an easier process than that, at least numerically. The K12 people I spoke with in Chicago seemd very interested and sympathetic to the need to connect libraries. In the first place, they seem to understand that libraries are where a lot of kids have to go afetr school to get Internet access. And, frankly, despite filters, library access is generally less controlled, or at least more flexibly administered. One director of educational and lirbary networking at a state net said that after several conversations with a very committed state librarian, he was ready to hook up any library that could make the case at whatever speed they needed!

If we look at policy options in terms of who we need to leverage, we have

1. Telcos: convincing them to deploy their commercial infrastructure and connect libraries

2. Telecom regulation: Finding leverage pouints at the state and federal level to enhance deployment and directly or indirectly benefit libraries.

3. State nets: Convincing them to begin hooking libraries up with high-speed connections.

Don't state nets look like an important solution space? I know, Bob, given Wisconsin's experience, so what else is new?

What am I missing?


My main concern is in this sentence of Rick’s message: One director of educational and library networking at a state net said that after several conversations with a very committed state librarian, he was ready to hook up any library that could make the case at whatever speed they needed!

Why should it take “several conversations” and why should the state librarian have to be “committed” (to what??) and why should a public library have to “make a case”? If the case needs to be based entirely on the value to K-12, does that possibly limit access to adults for other reasons?

How many state librarians would take the time to “convince” a state network coordinator? This might indeed be one solution but I think we need also to look at other solutions that aren’t so nuanced and dependent on the good will of K-12 who frankly, are not always that appreciative of the local public library.

Nancy Bolt

Yes, state networks are important. And whoever on this list said Iowa was past their prime was probably right but I would remind folks that we started that activity in 1986--20 years ago--when there was NO fiber in the ground and some states have not yet started! The capacity that exists for schools, libraries, healthcare in the State of Iowa exceeds that of some public networks. Most of the issues in Iowa are political (given that the initial legislation was passed in the dead of night) and less technical. The number of students who have received Associates Degrees, Bachelor's Degrees and Master's Degrees because of the hundreds of thousands of hours that took place (and continue to take place) over that network-- and to all corners of the state-- has allowed people to remain in Iowa and to make the rural areas of the state better educated with better nurses, teachers, professors, laborers, and even better librarians.

Having said that (just to be clear about my commitment to state networks), the challenges are tough. One of the biggest impacts is that of state government itself which is often the tail on the dog in terms of capacity needs (as opposed to that of the education and library community.) and which can skew solutions needed throughout the state. For example, it is often difficult to get state government IT folks to understand any capacity needs other than that of data. I would also offer (I know I've been beating this to death but the unintended consequences here may be huge) that the primary broadband funding source for libraries will likely remain E-rate for some time. Calling too much attention to the state-level regulatory issues/opportunities could put us right into a greater push from the states for block grants and local administration of USF--which is their desire right now. We have to be careful we don't shoot ourselves in the foot, so to speak. These discussions should not be "unhooked" from the funding sources since the interests of the regulatory agencies is not that of schools and libraries vis-a-vis E-rate.

The thing about state networks (and the related politics) is there is no pulling it back once the train starts to move. And...the politics can get very ugly. Whatever you decide to do to move this forward, I would not enter a state without having first talked to the library folks about the politics in their respective states. Sometimes the efforts in states are driven by the universities and that may or may not be friendly to K-12 and/or libraries. Sometimes the efforts are driven by K-12 (and E-rate) and that may or may not be friendly to libraries. Sometimes the efforts are driven by state government (not to be confused with the state) and that may or may not be friendly to libraries. Sometimes I2 plays a part and sometimes it is very late to the table. The variations on the theme are going to be dependent on what's going on in the state, the agenda of the governor, and the relationship of the governor to education and library community, and dare I say, the relationship of the governor to the telecom industry.

Spoken by someone who still has arrows in their back in order to bring capacity to Iowa's education, library, and healthcare community :-) and who encountered a totally different set of politics/issues when trying to accomplish a statewide network in Michigan so take the above for what it's worth... Even pure intent can often not withstand the power of the train...and each state has one. The source (K-12 education, telecom industry, higher ed., governor) varies but the politics are much more difficult than any technical solution. Coordinating the needs and the forces is the challenge--not the technology. Money will buy the technology--even to the corners of the state.

Gee...sounded like a rant didn't it? I've probably been waiting 20 years to say this... Thanks, Rick!

Linda Schatz


Just a few quick notes. I would be interested in how many StateNet SEGPs connect their libraries to I2 access. The 75% of our libraries that are WiscNet members are connected. For them, and I think libraries nationwide with I2 access, it is more an issue of "Ok, I have access to I2, now what do I do with it?" But I'm a firm believer that in situations like this, "If you build it, they will come." They = applications.

The StateNets group is a key player but so is NASTD (Nat'l Assoc. of State Telecom Directors, NASTD represents state network offices, while the StateNets group comes out of the state's university system. There are wide differences in the relationship between these two groups. In WI we work closely together but this is not always the case in other states.

I do think that Wisconsin did a good job setting the framework for BadgerNet, our statewide network. This is articulated in the "Wisconsin Educational Network: Business Case Details." While a rather lengthy document, I encourage folks to review the "Results of the Needs Assessment" on p. 4-11. This is at Libraries are mentioned over 30 times in this assessment. (Of course it helps to have sat on the committee that put this together.  :)




At my WiscNet mtg. yesterday the staff said the SEGP environment is mixed with generally two scenarios covering most SEGPs. (1) In most states that are part of the StateNets group, it is this group that sponsors the SEPG. This is the Wisconsin scenario where our SEPG cost (about $45,000 annually) comes out of the WiscNet budget and WiscNet is a member of the StateNets group. (2) In some states it is the higher ed institution, which is an Internet2 member, that directly sponsors that state's SEPG. I don't know who pays the SEGP costs in this example.

If you want, I can get Shaun Abshure on a conf call. Shaun is Associate Director of WiscNet and was a key person in getting the whole StateNets group started.