3 ms·

> The majority of their work is coming from volunteers. > the difference is that people and companies donate their time/money because they want the project to

> The majority of their work is coming from volunteers. > the difference is that people and companies donate their time/money because they want the project to succeed. And that volunteering time and energy are probably valuable then, especially if they can do the work of a real ISP. I think one real question to ask though is what is actually more efficient—donating volunteer time and energy to a nonprofit, or donating money and having that nonprofit hire professionals instead? GP doesn't sound like he is saying a volunteer mesh network literally cannot work, just pointing out that a network is inherently expensive to run, whether it is 'fully accounted for' on a payroll, or merely hidden in the cost of 'free' volunteering effort. It's an open question of whether asking for people's time or their money is better in the long run. Capitalism tends to suppose the latter.

Retric 8y ago
FTE can work a few extra hours a week at a non profit more easily than they can make more money at their job and donate that. They may also enjoy their time and learn valuable skills which make the time vs money argument misleading, because for most tech workers they are very different pools.
danShumway 8y ago
> I think one real question to ask though is what is actually more efficient—donating volunteer time and energy to a nonprofit, or donating money and having that nonprofit hire professionals instead? That's a good question. Judging from software development (which may or may not map perfectly to hardware infrastructure) both seem to work pretty well. Depending on who you ask you'll get different answers about whether closed (purely paid) or open (either volunteer or mixed) is "winning". But certainly they seem to both work, on the whole. Neither strategy is so radically inefficient that it's safe to dismiss a company that relies on one over the other.
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  The incumbents are really good at suppressing competition. One response/workaround: Guerrilla networking. Why, in part? Because there's nothing much to target, financially. In some ways, legally. Instead, the incumbents have to elicit suppression through regulators and law enforcement, if they can. Google has deep pockets. But it could spend years trying to get access to poles. Incumbents don't just pay to oppose; they pay to slow things down as much as possible. Good luck deploying, when you have to wait 6 months for a court case, that's then going to get appealed. Stay under the radar. That's a whole different approach. And communities are getting desperate enough to try anything that might actually work. While I cheer them on, I simultaneously hope the press coverage doesn't bring the corporate mercenaries down on their heads.
  - paulific 8y ago
    Reminds me of the Corey Doctorow/Charles Stross short story Unwirer: https://craphound.com/unwirer/ https://craphound.com/unwirer/
nycmesh 8y ago
Volunteers donate their time because they enjoy it. We have so many volunteers it is hard to keep track of them all. Obviously it is more efficient to use volunteers if there are enough. We are considering using contractors for some huge projects we are planning.

Retric 8y ago

FTE can work a few extra hours a week at a non profit more easily than they can make more money at their job and donate that. They may also enjoy their time and learn valuable skills which make the time vs money argument misleading, because for most tech workers they are very different pools.

danShumway 8y ago

> I think one real question to ask though is what is actually more efficient—donating volunteer time and energy to a nonprofit, or donating money and having that nonprofit hire professionals instead? That's a good question. Judging from software development (which may or may not map perfectly to hardware infrastructure) both seem to work pretty well. Depending on who you ask you'll get different answers about whether closed (purely paid) or open (either volunteer or mixed) is "winning". But certainly they seem to both work, on the whole. Neither strategy is so radically inefficient that it's safe to dismiss a company that relies on one over the other.

pasbesoin 8y ago
The incumbents are really good at suppressing competition. One response/workaround: Guerrilla networking. Why, in part? Because there's nothing much to target, financially. In some ways, legally. Instead, the incumbents have to elicit suppression through regulators and law enforcement, if they can. Google has deep pockets. But it could spend years trying to get access to poles. Incumbents don't just pay to oppose; they pay to slow things down as much as possible. Good luck deploying, when you have to wait 6 months for a court case, that's then going to get appealed. Stay under the radar. That's a whole different approach. And communities are getting desperate enough to try anything that might actually work. While I cheer them on, I simultaneously hope the press coverage doesn't bring the corporate mercenaries down on their heads.
- paulific 8y ago
  Reminds me of the Corey Doctorow/Charles Stross short story Unwirer: https://craphound.com/unwirer/ https://craphound.com/unwirer/

nycmesh 8y ago

Volunteers donate their time because they enjoy it. We have so many volunteers it is hard to keep track of them all. Obviously it is more efficient to use volunteers if there are enough. We are considering using contractors for some huge projects we are planning.