|
 Holland & Knight is the eighth-largest law firm in the United States. With administrative headquarters in Lakeland, FL, the firm has over 2,000 networked employees in nine states and Mexico City. Eight hundred lawyers work with clients ranging from small-business entrepreneurs to multinational corporations. The firm is growing fast, too, in terms of employees, attorneys, and revenue. Expansion plans include offices in Asia and Europe.
Holland & Knight has attorneys specializing in 75 areas of law, from admiralty law to workers’ compensation. Often, several attorneys contribute to a particular consultation to best serve a client. Since the attorneys may be in different geographic locations, Holland & Knight’s travel costs are a big part of the company’s expenses. Some attorneys spend a few days a week in one office, and a few days in another. Upper-level managers travel frequently from one site to another. Additionally, trainers and trainees spend time on the road. For example, when a new piece of software is introduced, trainers often travel to a central site to be trained and then return to their home sites to teach end users. Obviously, travel is expensive and time-consuming, and attorneys, managers, and trainers who are on the road are less accessible to colleagues, clients, and end users. In 1997, managing partner Bill McBride proposed a broadcast-quality videoconferencing system to reduce travel expenses and improve accessibility. The system would connect all Holland & Knight sites. In addition to intracompany communication, clients could use the system to consult with Holland & Knight attorneys. Because the videoconferencing system would reflect on the prestige of the firm, video quality was a primary concern. Holland & Knight looked at some desktop video products running over LANs, but they were not impressed by the quality of the video. The company decided to pay for high-speed circuits connecting directly to high-end videoconferencing equipment in dedicated rooms to avoid fading, blurring, and out-of-sync sound.
INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONSThe job of planning and implementing McBride’s vision fell to Dan Polen, Holland & Knight’s senior IT manager. Because he lacked staff trained in videoconferencing, Polen sought advice from Anixter (www.anixter.com), a company that started out as a cabling and connectors specialist, but has since evolved into a full-service network integrator. Polen retained Anixter to provide planning and implementation support, and to train Holland & Knight staff to manage the videoconferencing system and infrastructure after it was installed. Polen and Anixter saw four possibilities for providing the necessary infrastructure: the firm’s existing T1 network, ISDN, frame relay, or ATM. Holland & Knight’s T1 network carried both voice and data traffic, and the firm could have added more T1 capacity and configured T1 multiplexers to reserve bandwidth for video. At 1.54Mbits/sec per T1 circuit, each circuit could support two high-quality (768Kbit/sec) video streams. T1 is a good technology for video because it transmits a steady bit stream, rather than bundling data into transmission units such as frames, packets, or cells. If a few bits are lost (due to noise on the lines, for instance), it doesn’t affect any other bits. However, there were two problems with Holland & Knight’s T1 network: First, the T1 tariffs included a distance-sensitive component that made the links increasingly expensive as distances increased, which made dedicating T1 bandwidth to video less attractive as Holland & Knight continued expanding outside of Florida. Second, some of the T1 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) was old and expensive to maintain. The firm could have upgraded the equipment, but that would have been costly, too. ISDN, like T1, is bit-oriented, but it has an advantage over T1: ISDN is a switched technology. Whereas Holland & Knight paid for its T1 bandwidth whether they used it or not, most charges for ISDN would accrue only while the lines were in use. On the downside, ISDN tariffs had a mileage-sensitive component. In addition, most of the ISDN-based videoconferencing products Holland & Knight looked at focused on 128Kbit/sec and 384Kbit/sec links, while the firm wanted 768Kbit/sec video channels. Frame relay was attractive from a tariff perspective because frame relay is not distance-sensitive. Although typically configured as Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) that are up all the time, frame relay circuits are usage-sensitive, so most charges accrue only when the lines are used. However, frame relay is not designed to carry video or any traffic that cannot tolerate variable delays. Frame relay transmits data in variable-size frames, ranging from less than 100 bytes to about 1,500 bytes. If a single bit is lost, the whole frame is lost. For ordinary data, dropped frames can be retransmitted. For video, however, retransmission is normally useless, because retransmission of variable amounts of data results in variable delays, which can can cause video equipment to lose the synchronous signal it needs to operate correctly. ATM turned out to be the best choice for Holland & Knight. ATM tariffs are not distance-sensitive, and ATM is specifically designed to carry multimedia traffic such as voice and video. ATM transmits data in relatively small (53-byte) cells, so any data loss is of a small, predictable quantity. That means all delays tend to be the same, and it is much easier for ATM to guarantee QoS. This capability is exploited in the ATM protocol, and in some ATM products, via the ATM Adaptation Layer 1 (AAL1), which is designed for real-time, constant-bit-rate, connection-oriented traffic. AAL1 provides transfer of data units with a constant bit rate, transfer of timing information between source and destination, and indication of lost or corrupted data. These features make it possible, among other things, to guarantee a low cell-delay threshold, allowing video equipment to maintain synchronous transmission. Sweetening the deal, AT&T offered Holland & Knight a low-risk upgrade path by agreeing to migrate circuits from T1 to ATM with no penalties for terminating the T1 contracts early. AT&T also agreed that if prices on ATM circuits came down, Holland & Knight could renegotiate the contract. VOICE GETS ITS OWN NETWORK Ideally, for simplicity’s sake, Holland & Knight would have liked to put voice traf- fic on the ATM network in addition to video and other data. However, AT&T offered such low prices for Private Virtual Net- work (PVN) circuits for voice that it didn’t make sense to use anything else—in most cases. The exceptions were the firm’s smaller sites, such as the one in San Francisco, where piggybacking the voice on the ATM network wouldn’t require any increase in ATM capacity. If the voice/ data/video integration works well in San Francisco, a number of Holland & Knight’s other small sites will follow this pattern. For now, however, the small sites have frame relay and no video. Taking the voice traffic off the T1 network and bringing it up on the PVN was a big job that included replacing Direct Inward Dial (DID) circuits and outbound central office trunks with bidirectional primary rate ISDN, as well as implementing fax to the desktop. The job was complicated by a requirement to duplicate existing features, such as four-digit in-house dialing with caller ID. The move took six months, from March to September 1998, following a six-month approval, assessment, planning, and design process for the whole PVN/ATM project. HARDWARE AND CIRCUITS The project called for three types of equipment: ATM switches, videoconferencing equipment, and ATM edge switches to connect the ATM network to LANs via LAN Emulation (LANE). In addition, ATM circuits had to be provisioned and tested. Holland & Knight took three bids on each piece of equipment. However, when it came to selecting vendors, reliability was more of a concern than price. For instance, Fore Systems (www. fore.com) was not the cheapest source for the ATM switching equipment, but Polen considered Fore to have the best reputation for reliability. In addition, Fore equipment had already been installed at some sites independently of the videoconferencing project, so compatibility with existing Fore equipment was a consideration. Holland & Knight selected a Fore ASX-1000 for the Holland & Knight administrative and computing headquarters in Lakeland, FL, and a ForeRunner ASX-200BX for each remote site (see figure, page 83). In addition, they chose a Fore ES-3810 Ethernet Workgroup Switch connected to a Bay Networks (now a division of Nortel Networks) ASN Ethernet router for LAN connectivity. For the videoconferencing equipment, the firm selected the well-established market leader VTEL (www.vtel.com) and its LC5000 Advanced Conferencing System, with a VTEL-supplied First Virtual ATM network interface card. Anixter began shipping equipment to Holland & Knight in September 1998, and Holland & Knight began implementation of the ATM/videoconferencing project in October. Data integration ended in December 1998, when the VTEL units were rolled out. The carrier, AT&T, used a variety of Cascade (now Ascend Communications) ATM switches to provide Variable Bit Rate (VBR) circuits and Constant Bit Rate (CBR) circuits. VBR circuits are used for data. These are Permanent Virtual Path (PVP) circuits that guarantee 768Kbits/sec but can burst to higher speeds. These circuits are used for traffic such as file transfers and e-mail, which can use bursts of high bandwidth and are not sensitive to variable delays. Since VBR circuits are permanent, costs accrue all the time, whether or not the circuits are in use. CBR circuits are used for video. These are Switched Virtual Circuits (SVCs) that guarantee 768Kbits/sec but don’t support bursting. The CPE must be configured never to offer more than 768Kbits/sec of traffic. In fact, the VTEL equipment currently uses only 512Kbits/sec. Since the CBR circuits are SVCs, costs accrue primarily when the circuits are in use. One advantage of both VBR and CBR circuits, as compared to a T1 network, is that the carrier takes care of most of the redundancy requirements. With the T1 network, Holland & Knight had to install extra T1 circuits for backup in case a circuit failed. Now, the firm doesn’t usually have to worry about redundancy for each network link. The exceptions are cases where a small site using frame relay connects to the ATM network through a site supporting ATM. For these situations, Holland & Knight has installed backup frame relay circuits in case the site supporting ATM has a problem. A FEW BUMPS In terms of project management, the project generally went smoothly. However, there were a few bumps in the road. For instance, VTEL videoconferencing equipment was back-ordered, which was the main equipment-related delay. And AT&T had to install fiber optic cable at the Lakeland site, a two-month job. Making the job even tougher was the fact that local and long distance circuits were often not configured correctly. One common problem was that AT&T circuits were not configured as SVCs. Thus, when the Fore equipment requested an SVC, there was no response from the carrier. Another common problem was that local loops were configured to generate alarms if no equipment was attached to them. When a local operating company received an alarm, it disabled the local loop. Then, when equipment was attached, the circuit didn’t work. Polen learned to call several days in advance to make sure the circuits were not disabled. He also developed a checklist of other possible problems. Further delays resulted from the retirement of an AT&T technician who worked with Holland & Knight for a year, was very familiar with their network, and was able to troubleshoot many of their problems quickly. “We spent a lot of late nights, as did the Anixter technicians and Fore engineers in Pittsburgh, on carrier-related problems,” comments Polen. COSTS AND SAVINGS Currently there are 10 sites installed at a total cost of $1.15 million. The sites are in New York, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Boston, Miami, Tampa, FL; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Jacksonville, FL; Orlando, FL; and Lakeland, FL. A site in San Francisco is scheduled to go online in June 1999. Here’s how the costs break down: Fore equipment and room construction cost $50,000 per remote site, and $100,000 at the central site in Lakeland, FL. The VTEL equipment cost $50,000 per site. Equipment prices included some basic construction to accommodate the equipment (a substantial amount in the case of videoconferencing rooms) and some Anixter fees for planning, implementation, and testing. Incidental expenses totaled $120,000 for all sites, including some Anixter network design and integration fees, travel, miscellaneous configuration, and old equipment removal (including taking out Paradyne multiplexers and putting in CSUs). Other incidental expenses included special architectural work and custom cabinetry for some videoconferencing rooms. Once carrier circuits were installed and Anixter had preconfigured and tested all the equipment at their own site, Anixter and Holland & Knight installers came up with a cookie-cutter installation to get sites up quickly. For instance, they put up the Boston office in two hours. In general, however, it took a couple of days to put up each site. Polen expects that savings will fall into three categories: travel costs, maintenance costs, and circuit costs. Although Polen doesn’t have exact numbers because the network is so new, he believes travel costs will go down because attorneys, managers, and trainers can use the videoconferencing system. Additionally, a distance-learning project is in the planning stages, and employees are getting used to videoconferencing as an option. Once these changes are firmly in place, the firm should see further savings. “Usage will increase over time,” says Polen. “Many attorneys bill $300 to $400 an hour. When an attorney can save half a day each way going to Boston or New York, the firm is definitely going to save money.” Holland & Knight will also save on maintenance costs for network equipment. For example, the company was spending $30,000 a month on maintenance for aging Paradyne multiplexers, and those costs have now been eliminated. Holland & Knight is not free to discuss circuit costs under their agreement with AT&T, but the costs are definitely lower with ATM than they would have been using T1s. Not only have distance-sensitive charges been eliminated, but backup circuits have also largely been done away with. In addition, AT&T boosted the company’s discount rate from 10 percent to 25 percent due to the increase in traffic and number of sites. Taking all these savings into account, Polen says the payback period for the videoconferencing investment should be about 18 months. In addition, he says, “My phone isn’t ringing. Life is good.” Once configured, the system is very simple to use, adds Polen. “You select a location and link to it. Any layman can to link any site with no problem.” The videoconferencing system represents only a part of Polen’s responsibilities. The ease of use and the reliability of the system let him give the research and development and strategic planning aspects of his job the attention they need. FUTURE PLANS Holland & Knight’s plans for videoconferencing fall into four categories: additional satellite videoconferencing stations, LAN-based video, real-time conferencing from three or more locations, and additional applications. The first category concerns additional satellite videoconferencing stations that are attached directly to the ATM network. If adding these stations requires more bandwidth than a single T1-rate ATM circuit can provide, Holland & Knight will use the Inverse Multiplexing for ATM (IMA) capabilities of Fore switches to weld multiple T1 circuits into a single virtual circuit. The second category focuses on LAN-based video. Holland & Knight’s primary videoconferencing requirements could not be satisfied by LAN-based video because of sensitivity about clients using the system. However, LAN-based video can still play a role in intracompany communications. To fill this role, the company is evaluating video servers based on the H.323 specification adopted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as the standard for voice and video communications over packet-switched networks such as the Internet and corporate LANs. Holland & Knight’s third category is real-time conferencing from three or more locations. Current videoconferences are point-to-point. To implement multipoint capability, Holland & Knight is considering Multipoint Conferencing Units (MCUs) or “video bridges” such as Lucent Technologies’ MCU, based on the H.320 videoconferencing interoperability standard. Polen estimates the MCU would cost $150,000 to $200,000. Finally, the fourth category involves additional applications of the videoconferencing system, including distance learning, video depositions, and departmental meetings. Holland & Knight’s main corporate software trainer is in Tampa. Holland & Knight plans to use Microsoft’s NetMeeting desktop videoconferencing software to instruct trainers in other locations. For instance, during 1999, the company will migrate from WordPerfect for DOS to Microsoft Word. The project will take six months, and millions of documents have to be reformatted. With videoconferencing, Holland & Knight can instruct software trainers sooner and more economically. Videoconferencing makes it possible for clients to give depositions, have attorneys review them, and have them recorded all at the same time. Holland & Knight already uses conference calls extensively for departmental meetings. Now, because of the ATM network, those conference calls can be enhanced with video. The Importance of Partners Polen credits much of the success of the project to the choice of Anixter as a partner. “You can always find somebody who will sell you the same capability for a little less. If you’re buying proven commodities, that’s fine. Go buy the cheapest box. If you’re buying cutting edge technology, find someone who can not only put it in but can support it after the fact. When it comes to videoconferencing and ATM, I would recommend that people be very careful about selecting a company to help them navigate these shark-infested waters.” Michael Hurwicz is a freelance writer and a consultant. He can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
';
document.write( '' );
document.write( addy_text2289 );
document.write( '<\/a>' );
//-->\n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Business Profile Holland & Knight Administrative/computing headquarters: Lakeland, FL Web address: www.hklaw.com Industry: Legal Number of users: More than 2,000 Technology in focus: Videoconferencing on ATM Holland & Knight IT manager: Dan Polen, senior IT manager Technical support staff size: 10 Network integrators: Anixter Project cost: $1.15 million for 10 initial sites Business challenge: Holland & Knight wanted to reduce expensive and time-consuming travel and help make attorneys and managers more accessible to clients and to one another. Solution: In 1997, Holland & Knight, with Anixter’s help, began planning for an ATM-based WAN to support broadcast-quality videoconferencing. This system, with 10 locations installed as of early 1999, reduces the need for travel and provides almost-like-being-there communication.
URL: http://www.networkmagazine.com/shared/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=8702428
|
