[9116] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The Buffalo Free-Net / NYSERNet / PSI problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Civille)
Fri Dec 17 20:20:15 1993
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 20:01:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Civille <rciville@civicnet.org>
Reply-To: Richard Civille <rciville@civicnet.org>
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9312172312.AA03586@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com>
On Fri, 17 Dec 1993, Dick St.Peters wrote:
> I'm picking a nit here, not making a general defense of PSI. I roughly
> agree with your analysis that freenets represent future business that
> providers would be wise not to overlook. We'll be more effective in
> making that case if we aknowledge that there is an up-front cost.
Dick: I think one dividing line on the marginal cost issue concerns the
use of email by a freenet rather than real-time services such as direct
FTP or telnet sessions. I know some arrangements between schools,
mid-levels and public access systems has been to limit direct Internet
services while allowing full use of email. With CapAccess in DC for
example, a system I'm a founding board member of, our agreement is to
limit the use of direct Internet services.
We also have had a limited time arrangement before we have to go buy our
own access, which is quite fair and coming due. The one year access
arrangement for us was great leverage to get the project moving. Our user
base is growing by 500-800 a month and accelerating, we have nearly 5,000
registered users now and we don't advertise. I would anticipate the user
base almost completely supporting this operation through an annual
membership dues within a few years. I will definitely be reviewing the
bids as we look for an Internet provider after the first of the year, and
so I find this present discussion about Buffalo helpful.
It also makes sense for a community network to limit access to Internet
services other than email. A community network needs to focus on the
geographic region it is in, and probably won't want the image of just a
"cheap onramp". CapAccess provides menu access to specific telnet sites
or gophers, such as the Library of Congress, but not direct "command-line"
access to the user. We want the service to highlight the DC region first,
and just opening up a big net firehose to the user base just doesn't make
much sense. We also avoid USENET newsgroups and highlight local
newsgroups instead. I think for this and other reasons I don't think
freenets use much in the way of resources, and why I think generally they
bear little marginal cost burden. I shouldn't have said 'none' as you
point out, but I'm still very curious to learn just exactly what these
marginal costs are -- particularly if most of the traffic is just email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Civic Networking Richard Civille
P.O. Box 65272 Washington Director
Washington, DC 20035 rciville@civicnet.org
(202) 362-3831
------------------------------------------------------------------------
