Print

Print


At  9:46 PM 6/13/93 -0700, David W. Barts wrote:
> [edited]
>>>On the subject of donations all being divided equally, I don't recall
>>>suggesting that (indeed, I can think of reasons why this would _not_
>>>be a good idea -- a rural network with a higher per-capita cost should
>>>not get the same funding per capita as an urban one with a lower per
>>>capita cost).
>>
>>        Then how would these central pooled funds be allocated?  I'm not
>>clear how this money would be divided up.  On what basis would you divide
>>the money?  Operating costs per capita?  How would you relate the size of a
>>system (number of users)?
>
>Probably on basis of population of an area, with considerations for
>other factors (allowances for higher operating costs in areas with
>limited local calling areas, more money for systems in their infancy,
>etc.).  Whatever formula is decided upon, it's important NOT to cast it
>in stone, and start demanding that people conform to the system's
>idiosyncrasies instead of vice versa.
 
        So the distribution of money would be on total population, perhaps?
 This doesn't then sound like a good way to help out smaller population
areas that may, I agree, need more help.  The funding issue is central
because everyone contributing money has a right to know exactly what they
are contributing too, and what to expect back.
 
       If you use operating expenses per (Free-Net(tm) user) capita, then
smaller systems would get more money.  This might help out the rural areas
that is the intention of this umbrella organization to help.  The smaller
systems would have less volume of users, making per capita costs higher
than larger systems.
        I am not sure how you could allocate on that number alone, because
number of people is also a major item to consider when determining the need
of an operation like this for the money from the central pool.  Then should
you use the total population of the local calling area, or just the total
number of users?
 
        If total number of people, this would not be an accurate measure of
need for that money.
        Using the total number of users might be a better gauge of a
system's need for users, the less the more need.  But then what if the
system just is inadequate or not serious about service, and isn't worth
using?  Maybe there are real reasons why people wouldn't want to use the
Free-Net that may or may notbe subsidized depending on the method of
monetary distribution.
 
        Tough questions.  I don't have an answer either, but I would like
to talk about the possibilities more.  This "umbrella organization" could
have a positive influence on policy issues as well as aiding Free-Nets with
monetary contributions.
        This is very similar to what the Smart Valley Inc. "umbrella
organization" is doing right now in Silicon Valley.  I found out about it
and read their vision statement just recently.  It's a non-profit that will
attempt to coordinate policy among the industry so that there is not just a
hodge-podge of divergent technologies being created when applied to real
uses.  It sounds to me like an EFF but it also acts as a mediator for
industry problems, sort of.
 
When I find an electronic source for the vision statement paper, I will
post it. (I only have a hard copy right now)
 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------<
   Grant Bowman                   Delta Sigma Phi, Technology Task Force
   [log in to unmask]      All hardware is worthless.  --Torque Systems