Are Free-Net Systems Unfair Competition?
In the Fall of 1994 NPTN was asked if it thought Free-Net community computer network systems posed a threat to commercial Internet service providers. While all Free-Nets provide Internet e-mail, their focus is not on provided free access to the Internet. In fact, their focus is quite the opposite in some respects: local information infrastructure. Internet communications services are a mechanical means for a Free-Net system, not a reason for existance. Free-Nets could not handle the load that would be placed upon them if they were to be available for full, open Internet access services. It is up to the commercial sector to invest in the necessary equipment and customer support staff to adequately supply paying customers with quality Internet communications service. If local commercial Internet onramp company cries "unfair competition" because a Free-Net offers Internet e-mail, then I wonder how could a business person the owner of that company is. Anyone in this business knows that pure e-mail is not a money maker -- in fact it is a loss leader. Users expect e-mail on all services and all services through it in even if their users already have an e-mail account elsewhere.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, private booksellers cried foul when public libraries flourished and spread throughout the United States. Today, millions of people are literate and enjoy reading and have the skills necessary to be productive members of an industrialized society. Private bookshops are more popular than ever and thrive despite the existance of public libraries. In fact, one can notice in many areas that private bookshops locate themselves near public libraries.
At the dawn of the 21st Century, some commercial Internet service providers cry unfair competition when a Free-Net provides the local community with access to computer mediated communications. However, NPTN has observed that many commercial enterprises are not stupid and already realize that a Free-Net is good for business insofar as a Free-Net gives users the literacy skills necessary to consume information products and services. Although this result is not an intended one of a Free-Net necessarily, it is producing good relations between Free-Nets and commercial enterprises in many communities around the country. In fact, in some places the commercial Internet providers point to the local Free-Net on their main menu and the Free-Net tells users to get their dial-up access from a slate of local commercial providers as they will be connected with faster and more reliable lines. If this occurance grows, Free-Nets can get out of the modem and phone-line operations business and leave it to the commercial sector, except perhaps for some lines dedicated to public access terminals for those without computers of their own to use for access to the Free-Net.
This issue had to occur since the Internet was perceived as free while it was paid for by government funds. However, the Internet is now privately supported and users will have to pay as they go. Free-Nets may be able to maintain their connections through their hosts (e.g., universities, community colleges, libraries, hospitals). However, Free-Nets should focus their limited resources on creating local content for their local community by giving local citizens the literacy skills in computers and networks so that local citizens can become information creators and disseminators as well as information recipients and users. When Free-Nets first started back in 1986, they were ahead of their time and had to invest in the infrastructure in order to give people access to the information and literacy tools. Today the private sector is investing in local infrastructure. Since a local commercial Internet company is a member of the community, a Free-Net should strive to work in concert with and not in isolation of such a resource and interested party.
When NPTN was first asked about this issue, NPTN's Founder, Dr. Thomas M Grundner posted an essay to the Internet announcing NPTN's position:
><<< PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO RE-PRINT OR RE-POST THE FOLLOWING >TO ANY MEDIUM, PROVIDED THE CONTENT IS IN NO WAY ALTERED. >>> > >------------------- > > >NPTN POLICY ON POTENTIAL FREE-NET/COMMERCIAL CONFLICTS > > > Recently several incidents have come up which have focused >attention on the relationship between NPTN community computer >systems and commercial providers. Rather than answer a >zillion individual e.mail messages, I thought I'd outline our >position in one official policy statement. > > >THE FREE-NET MODEL > > There are a variety of approaches to community networking, >the "Free-Net(R) model" being one of them. Under our model >we see no conflict between the operation of our systems and >ANY commercial provider. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. > > A Free-Net, properly run, is first and foremost a local >system, run by local people, using local resources, to meet >local needs. Our Internet connections are incidental to our >primary mission and our net effect is to INCREASE the pool of >telecomputing literate people to whom commercial services >could eventually be sold. > > A Free-Net, properly run, does NOT simply dump people onto >the Internet. We believe in building community networks that >are locally-oriented "electronic cities," not simply >"electronic bus stations." We believe that "cyberdumping" >people--especially K-12 students--onto the raw Internet will >NOT accomplish the goal of bringing this nation into the >information age with equity. > > We believe what is needed is a national network not just >for the people who are already on it, but for the people who >are maybe two or three waves back--factory workers, farmers, >blue collar people and others. This will not be accomplished >by offering them access to the card catalog at the University >of Paris. It MIGHT be accomplished if we can create systems >that allow them to find out what's going on at their kids >school, or what's happening with the latest flu-bug going >around town, or what's going on with their local pro sports >team or, for that matter, their own local bowling league. > > This does not conflict with any reasonable commercial >interest; and THIS is the heart and soul of Free-Netting. > > With regard to commercial providers who DO see a problem >with our work, there are two ways we can approach a >resolution. We can do it via conflict; or we can do it via >cooperation. > > >THE CONFLICT APPROACH > > Recently several small IP providers have threatened to >bring legal action against a number of community networks >including at least one of our organizing committees. > > Let me be absolutely clear on NPTN's position with regard >to this: > > If anyone so much as touches one of our affiliates or >organizing committees with this kind of action--we will jump- >in with both feet. We have full-time legal council on staff; >we have the money; we have the time; and most importantly we >have the WILL to fight this kind of BS. NPTN will simply not >put up with it--not with OUR systems--not now, not ever. > > We are not trying to be adversarial in taking this >position. But this kind of thing is one of the reasons why >it is so important that there BE an NPTN and why it's >important for community networks to affiliate. Standing >alone you can be picked-off and harassed into submission on >any number of fronts--not because you are in the wrong but >because you simply do not have the resources to defend >yourself. There is indeed something to be said for the >notion of "strength in numbers" and NPTN represents that >strength. > > >THE COOPERATIVE MODEL > > In many ways all this is reminiscent of a hundred years >ago when the free public library movement was gaining >momentum. The people who were most in opposition were a >handful of commercial bookstore operators. They argued that >they would be "ruined" if public libraries were allowed to >take hold, and that spending governmental funds represented >unfair competition with them. Who would ever BUY a book, >they argued, if you could get it from the library for FREE? > > I suspect everyone reading this document knows what >actually happened--a synergy formed. Public libraries >introduced books, reading, and in some cases literacy itself >to whole classes of people who would otherwise not have been >exposed. These people then became customers of commercial >bookstores, which made for a very healthy publishing >industry, which allowed the libraries to offer an incredibly >rich and diverse mixture of materials to their patrons, who >then went out and purchased even more books, etc. > > It is EXACTLY that kind of synergy we would like to see >form between commercial providers of Internet and >information-based services, and the Free-Nets. We seek a >cooperative model, not a conflict-based one. > > How can this occur? In many ways, the answer to this >question is limited only by the creativity of the people >involved. To cite some current examples: > > * In some areas commercial companies are, in whole or in >part, funding the development of local Free-Net systems-- >because they understand the importance of systematically >developing a customer-base for the future. > > * In other areas, commercial systems are purchasing NPTN >cybercasting services which not only provides their system >with some of the finest online content available anywhere in >the world, but helps to support the work of NPTN in >developing further systems. > > * We are currently actively working with several >commercial companies on models which provide both free local >Free-Net services and "on-ramp" services for which a fee >could be charged. The Free-Net provides a critical mass of >potential customers, the on-ramp provides the revenue stream >necessary to operate the Free-Net in perpetuity. > > > As mentioned above, our goal is cooperation with the >commercial world and we think that can be attained. But we >will not tolerate ANY of our affiliates or organizing >committees being legally harassed by anyone. > > NPTN was there long before most of the commercial world >knew there was a "there" there. We believe that calls for >cooperation and support--not conflict. > > >Tom Grundner >10/17/94 >
Click here to return to Solon main page.
Click here to return to OFCN's Main Index Page.
Last Modified: May 26, 1995
Page Author: Peter F. Harter
Technical Support: John M. Kurilec (jmk@ofcn.org)