Disparity Re: BD: Re: SCN: "Free-Nets" in Los Angeles Times
J. Johnson
jj at scn.org
Mon Jan 7 23:57:20 PST 2002
"A simple e-mail would suffice"?! Hah! You've already gotten the "simple"
e-mail. And if Steve was to publish a worksheet he'd want to check it (so
someone doesn't pillory him for an error), maybe even update it, and all
that would take TIME HE DOESN'T HAVE! Which I know, because there are
some pretty critical items he hasn't been able to get to yet. And I'd
rather he wasn't distracted. (Steve: don't do it!)
This whole discussion of setting up some kind of chargeable service is
fools dream, because there are quite sufficient reasons why it isn't going
to happen any time soon. And it's a waste of everyone's time, because the
reasons have been explained. If 'emailer1' (whoever he is) thinks
differently, he is quite free to set up his own service.
=== JJ =============================================================
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, emailer1 wrote:
> 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/ * * * * * * *
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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