Over the last few days, I have been providing background information about WVNET’s role in the larger world of technology.  Today I would like to veer off in a different direction and remind everyone that WVNET is about more than technology: It is about people.

First, the people WVNET serves:

• The Raleigh County adult who is pursuing a degree by completing distance learning classes late into the night after a long day of work at a low paying job.
• The Tucker County judge who holds a pretrial hearing via teleconference.
• The little old lady from rural Pocahontas County who uses dial-up because it’s the only available option and calls WVNET’s help desk with questions – and to chat.
• The administrative staff at Blue Ridge Community and Technical College who use back office technology housed at WVNET to operate more efficiently and effectively and ultimately maintain lower tuition costs and provide better service for their students.
• The Ohio County high school student researching Marie Antoinettte online for her term paper.

These are the people with whom WVNET is concerned day in and day out.  Have you heard ANY of them discussed?

Second, the people at WVNET:

Over the last four years, WVNET has been under perpetual assault.  On three separate occasions, I had to talk directly to WVNET staff about the latest assault, twice in person and once by video conference.  I remember explaining one time that another organization surveying and marking off their property really did not have permission to do so.  I remember explaining another time that legislation giving the Higher Education Policy Commission authority to sell the only property it truly had authority to sell didn’t automatically mean their property was going to be sold and their jobs lost.  I remember explaining yet another time that all the rumors they were hearing from others in the Morgantown community about their jobs were not accurate.  And I remember each time talking to those employees ALONE.

I also remember a meeting where everyone was so busy fighting over who would benefit from the sale of the WVNET property – West Virginia University, some or all higher education institutions, or the Higher Education Policy Commission – that no one said a word about WVNET’s employees.

What does this perpetual uncertainty produce?  I will tell you.

• A suspicious workforce who had to wonder whether I was telling them the truth as they peered out their windows and saw surveying stakes in WVNET ground that suggested I was not.
• A demoralized workforce, many of whom are now gone, who knew good work didn’t matter and regularly asked me for reference letters.
• Higher education institutions fearful of looking to WVNET for new services because it soon might not be there.
• A facility that was not properly maintained because you don’t want to make a significant investment in a building that isn’t going to be there five years from now.

WVNET staff is not perfect, and most of them would be the first to tell you that.  But they also would tell you they did not deserve to be treated as they have been – and they would be right.

In 1982 AT&T, also known as “Ma Bell,” agreed to a break-up that led to the creation of a series of Baby Bells, including Bell Atlantic, which ultimately merged with other carriers and became Verizon.  The agreement divided the United States into local access and transport areas (LATAs) inside which Baby Bells would be allowed to operate and across which only long distance providers would be allowed to operate.

The goal of the U.S. Department of Justice in entering into this agreement was to promote telecommunications competition in a post-breakup world.  Competition was fostered on the long distance (LATA-crossing) side, but was less successful on the local provider side.  At the local level, it is much more difficult to ensure effective competition among telecommunications providers, primarily because they often have monopoly control over telecommunications circuits.

The State of West Virginia has two available mechanisms to ensure that reasonable telecommunications rates are charged and competition fostered.  The first and most frequently discussed, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, can control costs by regulating certain rates and business practices.  To represent the interests of consumers in such proceedings, the PSC employs a Consumer Advocate.  For many years, Verizon and other providers had a fierce foe in Consumer Advocate Billy Jack Gregg, who fought telecommunications providers tooth and nail on behalf of consumers like you and me.

After 30 years of tireless service as West Virginia’s first and only Consumer Advocate, Mr. Gregg retired from the public sector and founded Billy Jack Gregg Universal Consulting. Still widely regarded as one of West Virginia’s foremost authorities on telecommunications issues, Mr. Gregg continues to provide his expertise to clients on both the consumer and business side. But these days, you’re highly unlikely to hear Mr. Gregg weigh in on any issue concerning Verizon. Rumor has it that Verizon now pays Mr. Gregg a substantial retainer just to keep him from commenting publicly on its maneuvers.

A second and less frequently discussed group – public sector telecommunications purchasers, including K-12, higher education, and state government agencies – also can control costs and foster competition with their procurement practices.  Why?  The public sector – first K-12, then higher education, and then the rest of state government and the courts – are Verizon’s largest customers.

Given this fact, I will pose a counterintuitive proposition: The last thing the State of West Virginia, including education, wants to do is bid out mega-telecommunications contracts to be awarded to a single vendor.  Rather, the State wants to bid out multiple smaller contracts to multiple vendors.

But doesn’t the State want to get the best bang for its buck on telecommunications costs, you ask? And doesn’t an entity like the State get the lowest vendor cost and have the lowest contract management expenses if it bids out mega-contracts?  Yes and no.

In the short run, you possibly could attain these benefits if you assume that the bidders are on a level playing field, which they are not, and that political considerations would play no role in the award.  Verizon, with control of so much infrastructure, particularly middle mile infrastructure referred to in a previous post, has a leg up on everyone else and is the entity most likely to win the mega-contract.

But even if the first round of bidding were truly open and competitive, future rounds would not be as the entity that got the initial contract could quickly exploit its monopoly status and drive current and future competition out of the market, resulting in higher long-term costs for the State of West Virginia and its citizens.

Tying these thoughts back into a discussion of WVNET, the State is not like any other single private sector vendor, which almost always would benefit from collective bidding of telecommunications services.  As an entity large enough to promote harmful monopoly, the State should be strategic in its thinking about contracting and should not automatically bring K-12, higher education and state and local government together for purposes of telecommunications contracting or bid all parts of its infrastructure at once.

Technological advances are changing the calculus I have described, but we will have an 800 lbs. telecommunications “baby” into the foreseeable future.  And that is an important consideration in these proceedings.

PS: If this blog mysteriously ceases publication, one of two things happened.  My own personal Verizon account was shut down … or I received a VERY LUCRATIVE consulting contract and am honoring the terms of that contract.  (Others have posited a third scenario, but I remain optimistic, even as I lock my doors.)

Ninety (not 180) degree turn!  Full throttle!  The Charleston Gazette now is reporting that the State Office of Technology “has no intent of moving those [WVNET] employees” from the Morgantown area.  It is not clear where they would work, however, as their building and equipment would be gone.

So much to comment upon it is hard to figure out where to start:

• The latest plan is to consolidate WVNET, sell its property, and move the equipment to Charleston or Flatwoods? Why would you not consolidate everything to Morgantown where you have qualified staff and a machine room at the ready?  [Insert obvious answer here.]
• What about the 16 to 24 months West Virginia University needs to move services to its campus data center (which, by the way, was in a flood plain the last time I checked)?  [Insert obvious answer here.]
• A proposed follow-up question to the statement that the Higher Education Policy Commission owns Bluefield State College and Concord University property, too: So the 2007 legislation was aimed at helping the Commission sell Bluefield State College’s and Concord University’s property, not the WVNET property?  [Insert obvious answer here.]

Why doesn’t everyone just take a deep breath and admit one thing?  There is no well-thought-out plan to do anything other than put up a “For Sale” sign on the WVNET property.  I don’t mean to sound so bemused/ cynical/ sarcastic/ strident (take your pick), but seriously … technology is too important to our public schools, our colleges, our courts, our government, and our citizens not to have solid transition plans in place before selling property as important to the State as that on which WVNET sits.  Even more important, the environment in which good plans are developed and implemented requires trust, and there’s not likely to be much trust after all of this.

For you and me, moving is a difficult experience.  For an organization like WVNET, it would be a logistical nightmare.  A nightmare, mind you, that could be accomplished, but a nightmare nonetheless.

In an earlier post on WVNET, I referenced logistical challenges if WVNET were to move from its current location, as well as significant costs associated with such a move.  Why is that?

• When you and I make a move, we generally pack everything, shut down for a while, and make our move.  That would not be possible for WVNET.  Can you imagine what would happen if no public education teacher or legislator could send an email or access the internet for days?  If colleges could not register students or offer online instruction?  If the state court system could not hold online hearings?  The number of complaints directed at WVNET, higher education system offices, the governor’s office, and others would be astronomical, and WVNET would receive front-page news coverage, just not the kind WVNET would like.  WVNET has a backup generator, tested regularly, that kicks on almost instantly when it loses power to prevent even minimal down-time much less this kind of down-time.
• Moving WVNET also is not as simple as packing up a few desks, chairs, computer monitors and hard drives and some old papers and office supplies and loading them on a moving truck.  Millions of dollars worth of equipment are sitting in WVNET’s machine room right now.  Much of that equipment was assembled onsite and is highly vulnerable to damage if moved.  Although there are maintenance agreements for much of that equipment, the provisions of those agreements would not apply to damage caused during a physical move like that being proposed.

So how would you orchestrate such a move?

• In a perfect world with unlimited resources, you would buy all new equipment and allow WVNET to transfer systems one by one over a period of days, weeks and months.  But re-outfitting a facility like WVNET from scratch probably would be prohibitively expensive and wipe out all or most of the money it would receive from the sale of the property.
• More likely, WVNET would be expected to make the move at the least cost possible.  This probably would mean buying some equipment where there would be no other way to facilitate a move; renting equipment like a power generator until the current generator could be relocated in the last step of the move; disassembling very expensive pieces of equipment, packing them, moving them, and reassembling them, probably with assistance from some of the vendors from whom the equipment was purchased (there, of course, would be a bill for that); and making major portions of the move between midnight to 6 AM on Sunday mornings over a period of weeks or months.  (The adult student trying to complete her online coursework during this time would just have to suffer.)  During the period of the move, WVNET would incur dual costs for many items.
• The worst job in all of this probably would be that of the move coordinator.  The move coordinator would have to go down the WVNET services and equipment list item by item and figure out how to orchestrate a move for each item while minimizing both costs and disruption.  The Gantt chart developed to accomplish this move would go on for pages and pages.
• The monetary aspects of the move also would be problematic.  Typically the transfer of funds from buyer to seller does not occur until the time of closing after a move of this size and scope has been accomplished.  From where is the money going to come to orchestrate this move before Mylan Pharmaceuticals pays for the property?  As a state agency, WVNET can’t simply go to its local bank and get a loan.
• And let’s not forget all of the problems that arise during a simple move.  Workers packing instead of working.  Broken and missing items.  Movers not where they should be when they should be.  Packing and unpacking that takes longer than expected.
• And we’re not done yet.  There is a lot of telecommunications fiber going into the area where WVNET is located because of what WVNET and its neighbors do.  As a result, WVNET cannot move just anywhere.  It must move to a place where a whole lot of fiber is located and/or can be located.  If not, you’re talking more time and money.

Several years ago, WVNET staff made an initial pass at calculating some of the costs associated with moving.  I do not remember precisely what those numbers were, but they were staggering.  I hope this helps you understand why I have been laughing at what I have been reading.  Even I could not pull off the sprezzatura needed for this project.

The Charleston Daily Mail published an interesting article today that illustrates the difficulty of meeting technology needs in a political climate.  The article explains that much of the $126 million in federal stimulus money leveraged for broadband is going to Verizon to build something being characterized as the “middle mile.”  The “middle mile” will get close enough to rural communities that other companies will step in to build out the “last mile” to customers’ homes and businesses, or so the theory goes.  And guess what?  Verizon will own the “middle mile” circuits that the federal government is paying $126 million to install.

Is that wrong?  Something doesn’t seem right, but I am unsure.  Some thoughts and then a history lesson:

First, the thoughts:

• A lot of money will have been wasted if no one actually installs the “last mile,” but it’s possible that the “middle mile” truly is a larger barrier to broadband access than the “last mile.”  I do not know.
• Why would the State turn over millions of dollars worth of infrastructure paid for with federal dollars for free?  Strangely, this is the public sector equivalent of Dow’s $10 million “gift,” but makes far less business sense than Dow’s financial move.  Why not at least put the new network infrastructure out for bid to see if someone thinks it has a value of more than $0 and then use any funds generated for additional broadband expansion?
• While I question the choice of Verizon, I do realize that it is easier (but possibly not cheaper) to deal with Verizon, the telecommunications Goliath, than a large group of Davids like FiberNet, CityNet and Ntelos.

Second, a history lesson: In the late 1990s, Verizon convinced State government leaders that the wave of the future was asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technology.  So the State ponied up $1.5 million per year for all kinds of educational institutions and state government agencies to get the new ATM circuits through the WV2001 Project.  Verizon effectively wanted to hedge its ATM bet, and the State of West Virginia was more than happy to comply.  But guess what?  ATM were not the wave of the future.  Verizon and its partner the State of West Virginia bet wrong.

Why was the State happy to comply with Verizon’s request?  Verizon is very powerful politically, and no one, including skeptical state technology officials, were about to stand in its way.  Given the powerful technology interests out there and their willingness to use their political power for financially beneficial ends (and I don’t blame them for that nor expect them to behave any differently) and given the large amounts of money spent by the State on technology, we need technology agencies that are very stable and insulated from political influence.  In 2000, then Chief Technology Officer Sam Tully thought that entity was WVNET and transferred control of much of the State’s telecommunications infrastructure to WVNET.

The rarely-studied lessons of history are intriguing.