Grex Coop10 Conference

Item 42: HVCN and Grex

Entered by srw on Tue Oct 7 02:54:20 1997:

At the last board meeting, I put on my HVCN hat, and expressed to the 
board what we have been thinking over at HVCN about access.

For several years, as you probably know, HVCN has been planning on 
adding access and free email. We do believe that these are an important 
part of the standard suite of services offered by a community network. 

So far, we haven't gotten very far, and the reason is very simple. It is 
hard and expensive to provide these services. When folks write me as 
webmaster of HVCN, asking about dial-up and e-mail services, I 
invariably provide them with all the information they need to be able to 
find Grex and get started over here. HVCN has been running on its own 
server for almost 6 months now, and this has given us a chance to 
reassess our thinking on this issue.

Anything we would spend time and effort on in this direction would be a 
direct duplication of the services grex provides. We find it hard to 
justify spending the kind of effort it takes to provide these services, 
especially when it would be reinventing the wheel. It is perfectly clear 
that these services are needed, but it is not clear that they need to be 
provided by so many organizations.

At the most recent HVCN board meeting (Sunday 10/5) the sense of the 
HVCN board was that I could replace the explanation on HVCN's web site 
of HVCN's future plans to provide dial-up and e-mail. I was given 
permission to replace them with pages explaining that local users who 
want these services should get them from Grex, complete with pointers to 
Grex's web site, telephone numbers and modem settings, the works.

I am posting this item here to discuss this change. I certainly do not 
plan on executing it against the wishes of the Grex staff, the Grex 
board, or the grex membership. I have a general sense that there would 
be no serious objection. I am a grexer, too, so let me put on ny grex 
hat and see if I can outline the advantages and disadvantages for grex.

advantages:
(1) This is yet another way to advertise grex to local users. There is 
currently an item in agora/coop to discuss ways to publicize ourelves. 
This is merely another way to do it. It focuses on people who are more 
likely to come in locally via dialup than over the net connection. 

(2) Grex gains recognition and automatic respectability with the other 
local organizations HVCN partners with (county government, district 
libraries throughout the county, many more). Not that Grex isn't already 
respectable, but it is at least a feather in its cap.

disadvantages:
(1) The most obvious one is that this could increase the load on the 
dialups. At 13 phone lines, we are running near capacity right now, but 
there is still some room for growth. The cost of maintaining these lines 
is borne by grex members and others who donate to grex in one way or 
another. 

(2) Hmm, I can't think of any other disadvantages.

Well, there may be more of either, and I hope discussion brings them 
out. At this point, HVCN is not really asking Grex to do anything it 
isn't already trying to do on its own, and HVCN is offering free 
advertising, for what it's worth. I think this may be a possible 
win-win situation.
36 responses total.

#1 of 36 by robh on Tue Oct 7 11:28:04 1997:

Funny, I thought we were *trying* to increase the usage of the
local dial-up lines.  >8)


#2 of 36 by n8nxf on Tue Oct 7 11:50:30 1997:

Since HVCN doesn't have a dial-up I have not checked it out.  I guess
another question should be "Is HVCN where it wants to be?"  and "How
does this hurt HVCN?"


#3 of 36 by dpc on Tue Oct 7 13:48:23 1997:

I think this proposal is a good one, srw!  I expect that the added
load on our dialins will not be very significant.  And anyway,
what with Grex so s-l-o-w already, the expression "you can't wet
a river" comes to mind!    8-)
        Oh--HVCN might also want to point people to M-Net.


#4 of 36 by valerie on Tue Oct 7 14:48:20 1997:

This response has been erased.



#5 of 36 by valerie on Tue Oct 7 14:49:05 1997:

This response has been erased.



#6 of 36 by richard on Tue Oct 7 15:28:08 1997:

this should wait until email is offloaded to a second machine and
there wouldntbe any reason to fear increases emailloads.


#7 of 36 by orinoco on Wed Oct 8 00:29:14 1997:

Amen to that, Valerie.  I've run across far too many people here who seem to
think that we're in competition with M-net just because we're similarly
located.  I see no reason why both couldn't stand to benefit by helping each
other.


#8 of 36 by srw on Wed Oct 8 04:50:19 1997:

Grex *is* trying to increase the usage of the dialups. That's really 
what I meant about asking Grex to do something it was trying to do 
anyway. My fear is that HVCN might add more than a small increment. That 
fear is probably overblown, at least in the near future.

HVCN needs to be able to show the people of this community that they can 
get free e-mail and free dialup access to the net via lynx. The folks at 
HVCN think that Grex is doing this part of the Community Network's job 
already. It clearly would be counterproductive for us to compete. We 
would rather *include* Grex as part of the community network. This is 
what I am now trying to make happen.

Once I have changed HVCN's dialup access instructions, we will probably 
want to issue a joint news release. This could be picked up by local 
newsppapers, and might generate a surge of interest. I would prefer to 
wait until the Grex infrastructure is a little more robust -- ISDN, at 
least.

M-Net is a good service for e-mail only. I like M-Net, but I have not 
been considering M-Net because they do not provide free access to the 
web via lynx. This is important to HVCN, because we can (hopefully) get 
users started on grex with a simple way to invoke: 

lynx http://www.hvcn.org/

which permits them direct access to HVCN's community infocenter pages, 
should they want to go there.



#9 of 36 by richard on Wed Oct 8 14:26:42 1997:

I suppose maybe Cyberspace Inc. could get a co-sponsorship of HVCN
out of this...this might help if a 401(3)(c) is evera pplied for.
HVCN wouldnt object to adding Cyberspace Inc. as a title co-sponsor
would it?



#10 of 36 by valerie on Wed Oct 8 14:53:47 1997:

This response has been erased.



#11 of 36 by jep on Wed Oct 8 21:36:50 1997:

re #8:

I ran "newuser" on M-Net today, creating a guest account, and then ran
"lynx" and "g" and "www.hvcn.org".  I got right through to HVCN.  M-Net
has the same lynx access that Grex does, as far as I could tell.


#12 of 36 by dpc on Thu Oct 9 02:27:19 1997:

Steve, M-Net *does* provide free access to the Web via lynx!
We are always careful to install the newest available version
of lynx.  I use it constantly so as to avoid the *&(*&% ads
on the Web.
        So please do consider M-Net.


#13 of 36 by aruba on Thu Oct 9 20:59:52 1997:

I think this is a great idea, Steve, and I hope you go for it.


#14 of 36 by janc on Thu Oct 9 23:42:18 1997:

(The WIN grant fiasco probably left Grex and HVCN feeling friendlier to each
 other than either feels to M-Net.  Since the leadership at M-Net has largely
 changed, probably we should work on putting that behind us.)


#15 of 36 by richard on Fri Oct 10 20:26:54 1997:

If Grex ever wanted to apply for a 401(3)(c)/tax exempt status, wouldnt 
it help satsify any public service criteria if it is co-sponsoring a 
place like HVCN?  I'm assuming it would be akin to M-net when it started 
the K-12 program so it could say it was doing public service or 
educational work.  But then again, rcurl's the 401(3)(c) person here, I 
dont even know what the actual requirements are.


#16 of 36 by dpc on Fri Oct 10 21:26:54 1997:

Actually, richard, Arbornet (which runs M-Net) got a grant to run
K-12, and did it because we thought it was a good idea.  The formal
requirements for 501(c)(3) status are incomprehensible; the actual
requirements are basically that no one makes a lot of money, that
no profits are distributed, and that some kind of community purpose
is served.


#17 of 36 by richard on Fri Oct 10 21:44:01 1997:

And if Grex is co-sponsoringa p.ace like HVCN, somekind of community purpose
IS being served then right?

The 501(3)(c)  debate has never gotten anwhere on grex anyway, despire
rcrul'snbest efforts, so its a moot point.


#18 of 36 by mdw on Fri Oct 10 22:07:20 1997:

It doesn't really matter if grex is "co-sponsoring HVCN", because that's
not our primary mission.  Ace hardware, or MSN, could co-sponsor HVCN
too, and it wouldn't make any difference (except, perhaps, that HVCN
could do a lot more).


#19 of 36 by orinoco on Sat Oct 11 00:18:10 1997:

Once again, I find myself ignorant of local history.  What WIN grant fiasco?


#20 of 36 by scg on Sat Oct 11 05:00:37 1997:

Two or three years ago, there was some Federal agency that was giving out
grants to organizations that were doing big telecommunications or computer
networking projects.  Grex, Arbornet, and HVCN, agreed to join forces to apply
for a grant to put up a network of dial-up modem banks and public access
computing sites to enable the public to access our systems, and the Internet
as a whole.  There were a bunch of meetings in which a rather elaborate
network plan was put together.  Much of the way through the project, the
Arbornet people involved with the WIN (Washtenaw Information Networks) project
showed up at one of the meetings and announced that Arbornet had just applied
for a grant for a version of the WIN proposal, putting only Arbornet's name
on the application and leaving out the other members of the group.  Grex and
HVCN were left having to submit a proposal quite similar to one that had
already been submitted by another organization in the same town, a proposal
that the Grex and HVCN people had had as much input on as the Arbornet people
had.  That was the last time Grex or HVCN has tried to work cooperatively on
anything with Arbornet, because it made it very obvious at that time that the
leadership of Arbornet really couldn't be trusted.

As it turned out, it really didn't matter.  Congress cut most of the money
for the grant program before they could anounce the recipients, so WIN
wouldn't have gotten the funding anyway.  In a way, in this case, that's a
good thing.  Looking back on WIN's goals, Grex, HVCN, and Arbornet may not
have gotten what we were hoping to get out of it, but the goals of providing
various services to the community have mostly been met.  The Ann ArborPublic
Library, which was supposed to be one of WIN's public computing sites, now
has a bunch of Internet connected computers with a much faster Internet
connection than WIN was going to get for them.  The public access dial-up and
Internet access parts of the project have been achieved in a much better way
than WIN would have been likely to accomplis by lots of private companies,
selling Internet access cheaply enough that it is now very affordable.  I'm
actually kind of glad the WIN project never happened, since the community got
most of its benefits anyway, and those of us who would have worked on it got
a lot more free time.

It should also be noted that Arbornet's leadership at the time was a very
different group than Arbornet's present leadership.  The actions of the
Arbornet of two or three years ago shoudl not be held against the Arbornet
of today.


#21 of 36 by dpc on Sat Oct 11 22:19:47 1997:

Right, scg.  When Craig resigned last year he took the bad smell with
him.


#22 of 36 by robh on Sun Oct 12 01:12:25 1997:

Any idea where the smell is now?  >8)


#23 of 36 by srw on Sun Oct 12 05:20:46 1997:

I wasn't aware of the change in M-Net's policy. I thought access to the web
via lynx required a membership payment of some sort there. If it is available
for free, then M-Net seems to be a viable alternative source of access and
free e-mail/web access.

I will point this out to the HVCN board. It is not good to harbor grudges.
HVCN is a very open organization that likes to collaborate with local
non-profits.

At the moment, it is fair to say that HVCN is more closely allied to Grex 
than to M-Net for all of these historical reasons. Overlap in personnel, too.


#24 of 36 by dpc on Sun Oct 12 23:39:31 1997:

Thanx, srw!


#25 of 36 by jep on Mon Oct 13 19:47:46 1997:

Response #20 avoids mention that WIN made abrupt changes in the intent of
the grant in the week before it had to be submitted, and that was what led
Arbornet to withdraw from the WIN project.  Arbornet never did submit a
grant proposal of it's own, although the Board stated it's intention to do
so.

It *was* a fiasco on two of the three sides, and it should be buried.
Only one of the Board of Arbornet remains, and I can't imagine that person
wants to carry on a grudge after all this time.


#26 of 36 by rcurl on Mon Oct 13 20:44:14 1997:

What is HVCN's financial structure? Would Grex be included in this to
help support the heavier usage of Grex that would result? I think that at
least the respective "business plans" of the two organizations be considered
to see if any sharing of resources would be appropriate. 


#27 of 36 by srw on Wed Oct 15 20:23:05 1997:

As we speak, Grex has more money than HVCN. HVCN is a 501(C)(3) with our 
treasurer reports posted monthly on our website. HVCN membership is less 
than Grex, at $25/year, and is also optional. We certainly would 
ultimately need to find a way of sharing costs that we could both 
afford. I can't promise HVCN funds to Grex to support this usage, since 
users become Grex users when they do this. Still, if one day HVCN users 
become a major source of dialup usage, HVCN would be supporting this 
financially. Presumably it could afford to then. 

Even if HVCN contributes money to it, I can't see HVCN wanting to run 
its own parallel dial-up operation unless HVCN and Grex had come to a 
parting of the ways philosphically.


#28 of 36 by valerie on Wed Oct 15 20:57:11 1997:

This response has been erased.



#29 of 36 by davel on Wed Oct 15 21:04:41 1997:

[Me either.  Admittedly I was only casually following the discussion on Grex
& had no other source of info.]


#30 of 36 by janc on Fri Oct 17 03:20:12 1997:

[I was on M-Net at the time, and I don't remember that being offered as a
justification for the change.]


#31 of 36 by jep on Tue Oct 21 14:15:23 1997:

[re: the subthread: Arbornet had opposed kiosks throughout our
discussions, but they showed up prominently in the grant proposal.  That's
the main point that I recall.]


#32 of 36 by aruba on Wed Oct 22 09:01:02 1997:

"kiosks"?


#33 of 36 by remmers on Wed Oct 22 09:48:27 1997:

Public-access terminals.


#34 of 36 by aruba on Wed Oct 22 10:08:52 1997:

Ah.


#35 of 36 by lilmo on Tue Nov 11 03:44:54 1997:

Re: #0

So, exxentiall, what ppl ahve said is that we have no objections?
   ^essentially


#36 of 36 by srw on Wed Nov 19 03:50:01 1997:

THat's true. A few objections were noted, but the overwhelming response is
favorable. I am in the process of reconfiguring HVCN's pages to reflect Grex
as our access point for the Community network.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: