Recommended Free Tools
In 2001, Arizona planned to give about 850,000 students in 1,200 schools access to centrally hosted educational software and Microsoft Office 2000. The reported $27.9 million application service provider (ASP) contract was called “unprecedented” chiefly because of its scale and its intended school-and-home Office access—not because the contemporary report proved it was the largest technology deal of every kind.
What was the Arizona ASP deal?
A Computerworld feature published August 27, 2001, described a statewide plan to deliver software over a network rather than install and maintain every application separately on school computers. Arizona’s School Facilities Board contracted with Cox Business Services for the ASP arrangement; LearningStation was Cox’s educational ASP subcontractor. The plan covered approximately 850,000 students across 1,200 K–12 schools and offered access to more than 7,000 software titles. Computerworld’s report is the source for the figures and status below.
ASP means application service provider: software is hosted centrally and made available to users over a network. That approach shares a broad idea with later software-as-a-service offerings, but it should not be mistaken for modern SaaS. The report describes a 2001 hosted-application system, not a contemporary browser-based cloud subscription.
How large was the plan—and what did the numbers cover?
| Item | Reported detail |
|---|---|
| Students and schools | Approximately 850,000 students in 1,200 schools |
| ASP contract | $27.9 million with Cox Business Services |
| Software library | More than 7,000 titles |
| Reported ASP cost per student | $8.16 per student per year; the report does not establish that this included all hardware, networking, support, or other program costs |
| Broader IT awards | $172 million in school IT infrastructure contracts reported for that year; this was not described as one ASP contract |
| PC procurement | 45,000 PCs valued at $45 million |
| Network contract | $100 million with Qwest Communications International |
| School network specifications | Gigabit fiber to each classroom; 10Mbit/sec. to 100Mbit/sec. Ethernet connections to desktops |
| District-office links | From T1 at 1.54Mbit/sec. to OC-48 at 622Mbit/sec. |
The contract and infrastructure figures describe distinct parts of a larger technology effort. The $27.9 million ASP value is not the total cost of Arizona’s technology program, and the $8.16 annual figure should not be compared directly with a modern software subscription without accounting for different infrastructure and licensing arrangements.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Why was it called “unprecedented”?
The description rested on contemporary claims about scale and licensing. Gartner analyst Neil MacDonald said it was the largest ASP contract for Microsoft Office by user count that he knew of, adding that the next-largest deal he knew was less than one-tenth its size. Arizona official Philip Geiger called the Office arrangement “revolutionary and unprecedented.” LearningStation CEO Craig Larson described it as one of the largest ASP deals and the largest in education.
Those are attributed assessments, not an independently audited worldwide ranking of all ASP contracts. The narrower, better-supported claim is that Gartner’s analyst described it as the largest Office ASP deal by users known to him at the time.
What software were students meant to access?
The planned desktop combined productivity applications with educational and reference material. Examples named in the report include:
- Microsoft Office 2000 and AppleWorks AC2
- Encyclopedia Americana and the American Heritage Dictionary
- English-Spanish and Spanish-English dictionaries
- Elementary and middle-school content, including literature, social studies, algebra, imaging, and sound tools
These examples illustrate the intended offering; the report does not list every title in the library or establish that every student had identical access to all 7,000-plus titles.
What made the Office licensing arrangement notable?
Students were intended to use Microsoft Office both at school and at home, around the clock. MacDonald said Microsoft typically charged for the privilege of using Office in two places, making the proposed arrangement unusual in 2001.
The report does not reproduce the license agreement. It therefore does not establish the exact number of permitted devices, how users would authenticate, whether other household members could use the software, or what transfer rights applied. The safe conclusion is that school-and-home access was part of the plan—not that every student ultimately exercised it.
Rank #3
How was the service supposed to work?
Applications would run on centralized hosting infrastructure and be reached through Arizona’s network. Ensynch was responsible for ASP hosting. Cox was the principal ASP contractor, with LearningStation as its educational subcontractor. The report also lists KPMG, Citrix Systems, Cisco Systems, Intel, Compaq, and Microsoft as partners or suppliers under the broader arrangement; it does not fully itemize each company’s contractual role. Qwest was the contractor on the supporting network infrastructure.
Central hosting was intended to make software maintenance, upgrades, and troubleshooting easier to manage across many schools. Project proponents also argued that it could reduce the need for local technical staff and eventually allow lower-cost thin clients or network appliances instead of more capable desktop PCs. Those were anticipated benefits, not measured results in the 2001 report.
Why did Arizona pursue a statewide model?
The initiative formed part of a broader effort to make school facilities and technology access more consistent. The report connects the program to a 1996 Arizona Supreme Court ruling requiring equal access to facilities and equipment. The state subsequently took over financing of school infrastructure from local districts and centralized purchasing of computer resources.
Supporters saw hosted software as a way to offer students similar tools whether they attended a suburban school or a remote school on an Indian reservation. Central procurement could standardize access, but it could not by itself ensure equal home connectivity, local support, or effective classroom use.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What was the main technical and access risk?
The system depended on a reliable network. The report noted that running Office remotely over a 56Kbit/sec. dial-up connection could be difficult, while Cox planned to promote high-speed cable-modem service for students’ homes. The school-network speeds in the plan do not show what connections students actually had at home.
For home access to work in practice, a student needed more than permission to use the software: a sufficiently fast connection had to be available and affordable, and the service had to perform well enough for interactive applications. The report provides no latency targets, uptime commitments, service-level agreements, household broadband adoption figures, or performance measurements.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsBest Value
- Connectivity gap: A student could have an entitlement but lack adequate home bandwidth.
- Service concentration: A hosting or network failure could affect many schools at once.
- Rollout dependencies: Delayed construction, network activation, or PC delivery could postpone access.
- Implementation needs: Centralized hosting would not eliminate the need for curriculum fit, teacher training, or responsive support.
What had happened by August 2001—and what was still only planned?
The report is a snapshot during development, not a post-launch evaluation:
- Reported as online: Three model schools.
- Expected by the end of 2001: More than 200 schools connected.
- Planned: Statewide hookup by the start of the 2002 school year.
Those milestones were forecasts at publication. The report does not establish whether the full rollout met its schedule, how many students used the service, whether home use became widespread, or what the final cost and reliability were.
Why the deal matters in technology history
Arizona’s proposal illustrates an early attempt to centralize application delivery at statewide scale and extend productivity software beyond school buildings. It anticipated enduring questions about hosted software: whether central management can reduce local administrative work, how much performance depends on the network, and whether access at home is meaningful when connectivity differs from household to household.
Its significance is best understood as a large, ambitious plan documented while it was still underway. The contemporary account supports the scale of the proposed deployment, the unusual Office access claim, and the infrastructure design; it does not establish successful completion or long-term outcomes.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
