Are Free-Net Systems Unfair Competition?

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
>