BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times

[emailer1]

The key part of Steve Guest's message is the following:
____________________
"I do not see SCN being able to commit
to supplying free full internet access for our users.

Plus - this was not what SCN was designed to offer.  It is initialy an
email and maillist site which grew into a major web resource for Seattle.
We were never in the free ISP business."
_____________________

The above contains a Catch 22 element.  (1) We do not have the funds and staff to support a full ISP (including standard graphical functions);  and (2) we will continue to offer a very limited type of service and so we will NEVER attract or bring in the funds to support such a full ISP service.

Rather than mere speculation, it will be necessary to get a proper accounting (indepent) to determine
1.  How much funding it would take to operate an independent, proper ISP. (Staff and hardware)
2.  How many paying subscribers it would take (at $10/month) to support such an ISP service.  (This price would under cut almost all other services.)
3.  How many low-income subscriptions could be offered for little or no cost under this full ISP scenario.

If the answers to 1 and 2 are positive (i.e., it would be doable to get enough subscribers to fully fund all aspects of a complete ISP service), THEN it would be appropriate to discuss abandoning the tax-free status and switch to a for-profit service.  

By the way, the tax-free status comes at a cost:  SCNA cannot lobby.  SCNA, like Eugene was, is severely limited by the IRS as to what low-income services it can offer and as to what philosophical stance it can follow actively.

The library connection also has similar costs.  If SCNA actually did become active (read "controversial"), the library could no longer provide free connection.  As Steve pointed out, "(SCN)A is initialy an email and maillist site."  The design of the organization is limited by that earlier small mission.  Keeping the library "sponsorship" and the subsequent tax-free status prevent SCNA from being a desireable ISP and from being an effective community influence.

Until an independent accounting can answer 1, 2, & 3, there is no way to describe SCNA's potential or future.  It can only continue to drift.

P.S.

About the statement:  "We were never in the free ISP business."  

Actually, that is exactly what we used to tell everyone -- that we WERE a free ISP.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marilyn Sheck 
  To: scna-board at scn.org ; steveg at scn.org 
  Cc: douglas at scn.org ; scn at scn.org 
  Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times


  Well said, Steve.  And, YES, you are right about the library not being able
  to sustain your internet feed if your traffic increased.  We are already having
  trouble with our bandwidth just with SCN in its present form combined with
  our own services.  We would not be able to use public funds, which is what
  we pay for the Internet connection with, to support SCN's connection if it
  is more than a small fraction of our overall bandwidth usage.

  >>> steveg at scn.org 12/21/01 01:08PM >>>
  Hi
  Well first off we do have free dialup service.  On the other hand, this is
  basic command style access and not FREE Internet access.  I agree it would
  be great to offer such services, but we have address some important issues
  first.

  Let me try and explain why we do not have free internet access.

  1) If we were to offer free unrestricted connections to the Internet via
  our free dial service and our SPL donated connection to the Internet, then
  the traffic which SCN uses would jump considerably.  This would be
  followed by the lose of our donated Internet feed, because currently I
  have been led to believe that the Library would not be able to justify the
  cost of the service.  This would mean that we would have to provide our
  own Internet feed.  At this point we raise the need then to be in the
  Library because we are then simply taking up their limited space.  So if
  this was to happen then SCN would have to cover the phone lines, the
  Internet feed and possible the cost of a new location.  We do not have the
  budget for this and we would be out of funds within months or weeks.

  2) If we were to offer such a service with a fee, as indicated that
  Victoria in Canada does, then we open another can of worms.  First lets
  point out we are not in Canada and therefore have a whole different set of
  rules to abide by.  One of these is the IRS.  They are already looking at
  FreeNets because our "charitable" status is based on the educational value
  of the service.  As soon as we set up a competing service with a
  commercial service such as MSN or AOL - fee for service - in an area which
  is not directly education then we fall outside the charitable status.
  Thus we lose the 501(c)3 status.  This is what happened or is happening to
  Eugene FreeNet.  They had to setup a commercial company to sell their fee
  for service IP connections and break away from the educational section.
  Again something that would put us at odds with the Library and its
  donation to us.

  The IRS are still sniping and they have not yet gotten to SCN, but we are
  in their sights.  We have to be careful and stay legal.

  Until we can figure out the IRS's view of this, understand the Library's
  view, have the funds and staff to support this and the software to ensure
  that we can guard against misuse - I do not see SCN being able to commit
  to supplying free full internet access for our users.

  Plus - this was not what SCN was designed to offer.  It is initialy an
  email and maillist site which grew into a major web resource for Seattle.
  We were never in the free ISP business.

  I hope this response is clear.  I am not trying to say we cannot discuss
  these points, but we need to ensure that we can support our current
  services before we branch into others.

  Steve
        =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Steve Guest         steveg at scn.org         steve at groupworks.org
  VP of Board and ED of Seattle Community Network
  (425) 653 7353                               http://www.scn.org/

  On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, patrick wrote:

  > I wish SCN had low-cost, regular dial-up service. Victoria freenet
  > has regular dial-up service for $104 a year, which is a great deal.
  >
  > Few people use Lynx and after they have used Hotmail or some other
  > web-based service to check their mail, after they have surfed the net
  > to check on items on eBay, etc., one would find it hard to go to a
  > clunky Lynx browswer to surf the web.
  >
  > Patrick
  >
  > --- Doug Schuler <douglas at scn.org> wrote:
  > >
  > > A good article entitled "Freenets Getting a New Lease on Life" is
  > > in today's Los Angeles Times.
  > >
  > >
  > http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-000100643dec20.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dtechnology
  > >
  > > -- Doug
  > >
  > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * *
  > > * * *
  > > .    To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
  > > majordomo at scn.org        In the body of the message, type:
  > > unsubscribe scn
  > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at:
  > > ====
  > > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * *
  > > * * *

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  scna-board at scn.org is for the purposes of scna board members' internal
  communications.  Please contact sharma at scn.org if you have questions
  about this list.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn/attachments/20011227/128cea4e/attachment.html>