Disparity Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times
emailer1
emailer1 at netzero.net
Mon Dec 31 11:33:09 PST 2001
Steve,
This was a very useful response. You were specific enough to move the
discussion forward.
Could you publish your worksheet that you used to cost out the $5-10 million
figure. (How much for staff, for hardware, for connectivity, etc.) A
simple e-mail would suffice.
Thanks in advance. This will add a lot of clarity to the discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: patrick <clariun at yahoo.com>
To: Steve Guest <steve at groupworks.org>; <scna-board at scn.org>; Marilyn Sheck
<Marilyn.Sheck at spl.org>; <steveg at scn.org>
Cc: <douglas at scn.org>; <scn at scn.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:51 AM
Subject: Disparity Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times
> Unfortunately, the computer age has created a huge disparity between
> the haves and have-nots. The haves having computers and internet and
> the havenots having neither.
>
> A computer is fairly easy to come by now, but affordable internet
> access is not.
>
> Kids are often assigned homework which includes searching the
> internet for answers. Guess who gets screwed?
>
> And just being in on the loop of things, the internet is becoming as
> 'necessary' as the phone. Especially for kids. Economic disparity
> leads to social disparity. And less opportunities for those with
> disparity.
>
> I would hope that there is someone out there addressing this to the
> government, Congress, the IRS.
>
> Patrick
>
> --- Steve Guest <steve at groupworks.org> wrote:
> > Well we could debate this for months. Let me clear up a few things
> > first:
> > 1) We are technically an ISP, but since Microsoft started putting
> > the connect to the internet icon on its desk top the idea of what
> > is an ISP has changed. We are an ISP which does not offer direct
> > connection to the Internet, only to a server on the Internet. We
> > were and still are a founding member of Washington Association of
> > Internet Service Providers (WAISP) which is a lobbying group. But
> > due to the failure of most of the local ISPs to either survive or
> > not get eaten by the national big fish, WAISP could soon die from a
> > lack of membership. So it depends on your definition of an ISP.
> > 2) As far as the costs for an ISP - these are well know and we
> > have investigated them. If we were to take NWNexos for example, it
> > had a budget of several millions when WindStar bought it and still
> > it failed to be profitable. There are way too many factors to make
> > this a simple calculation. We would also change our profile and
> > start to impact others like wolfnet, drizzle and eskimo. There are
> > several ISPs open to offers in the area, go look at their books if
> > you think this is a viable proposition. From my costings, I worked
> > out that we would need about $5-10 Million a year for SCN's
> > operations and service to be "professional", plus a major culture
> > shift. Which is way too many $10 customers.
> > 3) I am confused by the 501(c)3 comment. Lobbying is not a high
> > priority for SCNA at present. The thing that Eugene did, as far as
> > I can see, is that it needed money and decided to do a fee for
> > service. They didn't read the small print though. Any fee for
> > service is fine if the service is educational, but as a connection
> > to the Internet, it is deemed by the IRS to not be educational.
> > They currently agree that the service is educational, but the
> > connection to the internet is offered by 100s of other vendors
> > which are commercial. Therefore this breaks the 501(c)3 agreement
> > with the IRS. Plus it brings us back to the first point - we are a
> > connection to a "service" which is educational and on the Internet.
> >
> > Personally, if I thought a for-profit with low cost for service
> > would make a profit, I would be doing that rather than working for
> > SCN as a volunteer CEO. Plus I think I know where I could have
> > gotten a few "staff" that might wish to work for me rather than
> > volunteering. So if running a cheap access ISP were profitable,
> > then where are they? They came and most went with the dot.coms.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: emailer1
> > To: Marilyn Sheck ; scna-board at scn.org ; steveg at scn.org
> > Cc: douglas at scn.org ; scn at scn.org
> > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times
> >
> >
> > 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%2Dheadline
s%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.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * *
>
----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * *
More information about the scn
mailing list