A few commonalities seem to come to the surface of our dialog. 1. Local districts are the most knowledgeable concerning their current capabilities, their philosophies of education, the current technological skills of their faculty, and the local service providers. 2. Technology is too dynamic to tie ourselves to any one format. 3. Training, in-house equipment, and evaluation are going to be a major cost along with universal service. 4. We need to see the value and expect use if we are to provide universal service. The scope of the service would need to address these. At the national level we need reliable interstate conductivity maintained at an increased level of bandwidth as audio, visual and speed needs dictate. We also need international service to match our own and the diplomacy to accomplish it. At the state level we need to encourage a backbone of conductivity and matching funds to fulfill the need to get equipment, training and evaluation tools. At the local district we need to focus on effective uses for students. We need a broad base of support. We may need to realign departments (i. e. multi-media and technology) to produce more efficient use of funds, and development of a strong intranet with effective communications. The bill needs to address a very complex and far reaching set of criteria.