[512] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS as Robin Hood
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Lee Schoffstall)
Fri Apr 5 03:45:31 1991
To: alison@osc.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Apr 91 11:49:07 EST."
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 91 17:20:38 -0500
From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
Alison,
Your a little confused: non-profit status is to be for the
public good, and is a PRIVILEDGE extended by the granting entity (a state)
and then by the taxing authorities of both states and the Federal
government to a corporation. It is a significant priviledge, there are no
rights to be held so. The priveledge can be revoked, and there have been
revocations.
According to common business law the only RIGHTS to do business (in
some specific manner, as your message appears to infer) are in for-profit
(taxable) corporations and they too have restrictions.
As a non-profit, ANS has a MUCH higher level of accountability as determined
by the states and by congressional legislation to the public than any
vanilla for-profit corporation in America.
Marty
--------------------
The issues of how to charge (based entirely, partly, or not at all on
"use", of which packet count could be one component) and what the
money gotten by charging is used for are separate. Let's not confuse
them, please.
This is still a free market economy, and if ANS (as a non-profit
corporation) chooses to use the money which would be "profit" in order
to play "Robin Hood", as you so blithely put it, that is their
priviledge. It is just possible that they feel that by doing so they
will build a better infrastructure that will result in the network
having more utility for everyone, including the "for profit" companies.
In the long term view, they may be trading current profits for future
profits, or they could be actuated by altruism.
I think we might be cautious about making moral judgements about whether
choosing to use profit margins to build infrastructure or pay shareholders
is better.
