You noted:
> Sure does.  If you do charge these folks, though, will you meet with 
> resistance from the private ISPs who may call foul on the grounds that a 
> government financed (by grants, in part) NFP is unfairly competing with 
> their services?  Second, to keep them with your service, it seems that 
> you will have to offer them a service for a fee a touch below your local 
> market clearing price.  My answer to for profit services in this wise is 
> t ask them whether they would be willing to provide the community content 
> for the same (zero) price and the underwriting of universal service.

Well, you know, I am no longer intimidated by such an argument, partly 
for the reasons you state. We are not an ISP and we do not pretend to be 
an ISP. We do *not* offer PPP to the world; dialup general public gets 
LYNX. For free. NFP orgs can get PPP and a whole lot more: dedicated 
connectivity, training, support, networking training, web space, domain 
service, etc., etc. -- Most of the stuff ISPs do not provide. We are 
focusing on two niches in the market: NFPs and small governments. If ISPs 
don't like it, fine. They can get a regular job like everyone else. No 
more sympathy here: I, for one, am tired of these cherry pickers whining 
because they have to work for a living.

Cordially, ;-)


> On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Steve Snow wrote:
> > Brent,
> > 
> > I have no problem charging the non's and the for's to underwrite the cost
> > of delivering free services to those without means. I fully intend to 
> > keep Charlotte's Web "free" for the end user,  especially aimed at those
> > people who don't have the wherewithal to buy it themse;ves.
> > 
> > We're planning fees for nonprofits and small govt agencies as a way to 
> > recoup some of those costs (we are, after all, helping them deliver services
> > to these same people (their clients!) via the web.
> > 
> > Make sense?
> > 
> > Steve 
> > [log in to unmask]
> >