next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Colin, Thanks for your comments. My reply interspersed: >Actually part of this process is actually carried out by the IP themselves. >They have to submit the application to CA Domain and then forward the >reply/approval on to CCN on receipt of such. For those without tech expertise completing the CA domain application is a daunting task. My limited experience is that it requires help from CCN tech. >(Since a VDN is not also paying an individual fee we are providing a phone >line which costs us every month -- $3/month in the case of the 20:1 PPP >ratio.) And then hardware and software upgrades ... Yikes. > >Could you explain this a little more? I don't understand this "not paying an >individual fee" What I meant was that the $400 fee (annual or otherwise) has some real costs behind it. Our two biggest costs are phone lines and Internet access (in both cases, I believe, $10,000 or more a year each, and that is at a substantial discount). If an IP pays a one-time fee, we'd have to figure out a) what the expected life of an IP is and what the costs of the IP's portion of the phone line and Internet access are. Over 5 or 10 years this would be a substantial sum. If IP's paid a $400 once only fee we would not be able to recoup any of these recurring costs. Now $400 may or may not reflect our recurring annual costs (I bet it is pretty darn close) but $400 only once certainly would not cover our costs. >>future I can't envision VDN fees (of the kind proposed) from the >>non-profit IP sector forming any substantive revenue source for the CCN. > >50 IP's times $400 = $20,000/year > >I'm sorry I really feel there's a lot of areas in the revenue collection >process that need attention before we start trying to squeeze additional >funds out of IP's. As I said before, I don't believe most if any IP's are IP's can continue to receive existing services (substantial by any measure) AT NO CHARGE. IP's wishing to have additional services, which cost us additional resources (time, money) are available at additional, reasonable costs. We have not asked IP's for income so i am not holding them responsible. However, as a group IP's contribute far less proportionately than do individual members. >approached to submit contributions on an annual basis, unlike individual >users. This is where we are losing probably a not insignificant amount of >revenue. Try collecting this first and see where it leaves us. We are now going to approach IP's on an annual basis with a fee structure, rather than just asking for a donation. I'd rather say there are additional services available for an additional fee. Are you interested in these additional services than "can you give us a donation". >If we're dead set on the $400/year tag, then we better make sure it is >clearly outlined what an IP can expect to receive in return. It would also > >If the $400/year is to include a PPP mode of access through a direct line >(that's not always busy), with additional E-mail accounts, use of custom, >specific IP oriented, cgi script hosting, direct FTP access etc. then it >may look more attractive. At present, however, I think most current IP's For $200 you get PPP on a line with a ratio of 1:20 users, etc FTP is being worked on. Additional email accounts are available, etc. >would see a VDN at $400/year an unnecessary luxury whose only visible >benefit is to give them a URL less than three lines long. > >I agree wholeheartedly that CCN should not "go in the hole" to provide such >services as VDNs, however I think it is a serious mistake for CCN to regard >such things as a nice big cash cow, because unless it offers something quite >outstanding or significantly cheaper than commercial ISPs then people are >just not going to buy into it. > >It seems to me that what we are discussing here is a completely new angle in >the way CCN is to think and operate, something markedly different from the >ideals conceived several years ago. Yes I know times change, but we have >to think very carefully before we decide that CCNs survival is based on us >being in direct competition with commercial ISPs. CCN is sinking! membership and IP's are falling. Functioning they way we have in the past (eg not collecting annual fees from those IP's which can afford it) is not working. We have to try some new things. They may not work. There may be other solutions. >I think there's a good chance we could significantly improve our cash flow >with some kind of a corporate sponsorship scheme. If some of the big >corporations were shown some details of the hits that CCN receives then it >could be an easier sell than most think. Get 10 major corporate sponsors >and the cash they contribute could well dwarf the amount CCN MIGHT receive >from an expanded IP contribution scheme. Richard Rudnicki, are part-time paid fundraiser (with previous experience owning a 25 person, multi-million dollar a year marketing firm) has tried to pursue corporate sponsors. He tells us we need to rebuild our membership base and strengthen our IP's first before we can get corporate sponsorship.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects