Free Vs. Co-operative

Free networks, in the sense that the user pays no fee for service are an enticing concept. Free, without cost to anyone, uncensored global electronic communication, is an ideal which should and one day will be realized.

There are however, two huge obstacles to realizing a totally free network. First is the fact that many components of such a system are today, not available at no cost. Second, is the existence of national and other government bodies that consistently intervene, via legislation, military force, and terrorism, to protect those whose interests are threatened by the very thought that people could have a service and not pay (them) for it.

Examples of costs, which today must be paid, include expenses for buying hardware, connecting to Internet backbones, renting space for access points, and paying legal or lobbying fees to counteract the influence of government bodies.

Attempts at creating no charge for service networks must transfer the above costs to the individuals or groups that are willing to take responsibility for them. These responsibility takers are the defacto management, whose wealth and interests determine the fate of the network.

In contrast to such a free system, is the cooperative system which seeks to spread the costs to all users of the network, rather than relying on the stability of the wealthy class.

The cooperative network, because of its broader base of funding, has clear advantages over the “free” network. First, the operation of the network is not tied to the generosity of any particular participants. As long as the cooperative as a whole can pay the expenses, the network will survive regardless of an individual contributors financial state. Second, democratic management is possible because the people are not relying on the favors of a few, but are relying on the effective use of their own contributions. Finally, the cooperative, with enough members, becomes a wealthy agent able to work towards the goal of totally free networks more effectively than even the most generous donor.

Scott Douglass