[2144] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Nonprofits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Laws)
Tue Jan 28 13:35:45 1992
Date: Tue 28 Jan 92 10:35:30-PST
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9201280549.AA15173@ray.lloyd.com>
> From: brian@lloyd.com (Brian Lloyd):
> Your aforementioned examples are fine but you neglect to mention that
> NPR or your local museum are selling the coffee mugs to support
> something else and that the overall profit of the organization may be
> zero. BARRNet is not trying to support anything but the service that
> is being provided. I can attest to the fact that BARRNet makes no
> money providing dial-up and dedicated 9.6Kbps service.
Well, to be egregiously contentious, BARRNet's good intentions and
noble service are as limited an example as were the coffee cups.
Nonprofits can be just as efficient as for-profits in providing
a specific service, but they tend to be less aggressive in providing
new service. Nonprofits have little reason to grow, since the new
people hired to provide new services are a pain rather than a profit
to the original staff. Also, there's less capital accumulation and
less promise of venture profit to pay for R&D.
Not that for-profits are necessarily better. They will invest
wherever they see the greatest chance for gain rather than the
areas where service is most needed. If customers are willing and
able to pay for service, for-profits will typically compete to
give better and better service. If customers want someone else
to pay, a nonprofit may be the best solution.
That's terribly over-simplified, of course, but relevant to a
discussion of operating policies for the national networks.
-- Ken
-------
