next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Doug! On Sat, 22 May 1999, Doug McCann wrote: > Recently I received e-mail concerning the fee for VDN service.For many > IP organizations the fee appears excessive. > > At the last meeting of the CCN board the subject of VDN fees was > discussed. In brief, it was decided that the subject, and that of other > fees requires further study. Therefore the IP Committe should prepare > material in support of the various arguements. In the meanwhile, the > current fee structure will be followed. I'm please to see that the Board is examining this issue again. > The current fee structure does not clearly demonstrate the disposition > of the contributions made by IPs. It does not demonstrate the the > benefits received by IPs and CCN. > > For example, the basic URL, www.chebucto.ns.ca, advertises CCN whenever > it is used. Clearly a benefit (non-financial) to the organization. All > users and IP's participate in this propogation of global awareness. CCN > in turn provides basic services at no charge. > > The switch from the CCN identity to a unique VDN identity results in the > loss of this benefit to CCN. Therefore, an element of the fee structure > for VDN users must be financial compensation for basic services > provided. Absolutely. This is certainly fair enough. > Part of the fee should be allocated for setup and maintenance of the VDN > on the system. In the ISP community there is normally an annual fee for > activated VDNs. I think annual charges (as a concept) are fair enough in relation IPs. I think we should still provide a very minimal cost (electively no-cost) service for IPs (as per our individual membership fees). We have a number of IPs on the CCN that provide very valuable information and or services which have (effictively) no budget at all. For instance, Janet McKay's (may she rest in peace) Scottish Heritage site is (arguably) the most popular site on the CCN (it certainly receives the most URL hits) and yet it was entierly the initiative of a single woman who lived in illness and poverty. We have many other IPs (and we have encourgaed such) which are one-person initiatives or the work of a group or organization that really has no budget. I have argued that the crucial difference in the determination of fees ought not to be VDN or not (system administrators of commercial sites typically have no difference in fees for the two since the differencial in costs between the two is, in their words, "coffee change"), but rather commercial (or business) or not. It's my feeling that this should be the more important determinent of fee structures. The Board did, in fact, at one time approve a 'buisness tier' of memberships (which I though was a good idea), however, this idea was (apparently) later jettisoned. > At CCN the provision of a VDN is a premium service, meant to solicite > additional contributions. A portion of the fee is charitable, with the > donation portion ($10+) eligible for a tax receipt. Is this level for IP's really $10+? It's $20+ for individuals and I would think the costing out for IPs should, if anything, be higher, yes? > The organization is a community of haves and have-nots, with the former > providing the availability of basic services to all through the minimum > suggested IP fee. The fee for VDN is an extention of this concept. I agree, the question is how much of an extension? ;-> I have argued for some time that our community (the real community of our IPs) has a moderate constituency of organizations who could afford say a $100 - $150 annual VDN charge. Indeed examining such groups: 1) Heart Health Nova Scotia - A Dalhousie research project 2) The Picaro - a student newspaper 3) Canadian Ski Patrol - a safety NGO 3) SCETTINS - a professional group And their means all indicate that they are not high rollers. I believe (in fact in most cases I know, having asked them) that none of them would be able to afford fees in the range of $400 per annum. There are a number of other such groups on the CCN. Ergo, to serve our own constituency of non-profit IPs we should have a fee structure that reflects what they are in a position to pay. Otherwise we neither serve them nor do we realize any greater revenues. We could also have a higher tier of rates that we charge business IPs who can afford more. > And finally, all service fees are subject to sales tax (15%). > > A decomposed fee structure may bring greater awareness and acceptance > concerning the total fee imposed for the service. Your comments and > suggestions would be appreciated. I've looked at the table you sent along, and perhaps I'm just dense (always a disctinct possibility) but I simply can't puzzle it out. I can't get the numbers in this table-cum-spreadsheet to add up (in columns or rows) and I don't understand what the A-J categories mean or how to relate them to the Level and Service categories on the left. I think the approach is excellent (of decomposing fees into a number of incremental pieces): I just can't understand the structure of the table. Can you explain and/or reformulate the table for dullards like me? ;-> Thanks! Chris _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Christopher Majka <aa051@chebucto.ns.ca> Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada URL = http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Home.html "We have ... in this country ... far too many captive editors who cannot even be heard to rattle their chains." -- Carl E. Lindstrom _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects