[MLB-WIRELESS] Melbournes Broadband Enquiry Submission

[Steven Haigh]

Please see below....

Signed,
Steven Haigh
President - Melbourne Wireless
www.wireless.org.au


----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Mead" <craig.mead at pagesmith.com.au>
To: "melbwireless" <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] Melbournes Broadband Enquiry Submission


> I just had a read through Melbourne Wireless' Broadband Enquiry
Submission.
> While there are some valid points there are also some points which cause
> concern among myself and others from various other groups
> (Bris/Melb/Syd/Adelaide/Gympie).
>
> To start, I was just wondering who was working on this submission. I had a
> look @ http://www.wireless.org.au/wiki/?WGInquiry and read through the
basic
> information there but there was not by a long reach anything near a final
> submission. Also, in the task list, there is a point "Liaise with Sydney,
> other freenets" to my knowledge (and to everyone elses) there has been NO
> liasing WHATSOEVER with Sydney and from my discussions with other group
> members, anyone else. Can you please clarify who the "team" was and with
> what people from what states you "liased" with in the writing of this
> submission?
>
> Another point in your task list was "Submit draft to membership X days
> before due date."
>
> I do not recall seeing a post on the mailing list regarding this
submission,
> and since you were still working on a final draft the on Monday night when
> it was due Wednesday, I don't see how the membership was asked for input
on
> the final document.
>
> (all quotes from http://www.wireless.org.au/media/press/winquiry.pdf
which,
> as understood is the final submission to the government on behalf of
> "Melbourne Wireless")
>
> "Inquiry into Broadband Technologies Submission by Melbourne Wireless"
>
>
> "Melbourne Wireless represents over 500 like-minded individuals in
Victoria,
> and
> through the wireless.org.au initiative, thousands more around Australia
and
> New
> Zealand."
>
> I was unaware that Melbourne Wireless represented thousands more around
> Australia and New Zealand? Is this not what Steven and others from MW had
> against other groups stating that they represented areas which infact,
they
> did not?

Taken from our visitors logs... There's over 9000 unique visitors to our
site this month. These people must have *some* interest in wireless -
otherwise they wouldn't be going to our site.


> "We are currently going through the process of incorporation and show no
> signs of slowing down in the exponential growth that has been observed in
> the past 18 months."

This is correct in both the mailing list, web site visits (we're already
over the 4Gb of traffic served this month) and meeting attendance.

> combined with a fact further on in the document
>
> "No access fee can be charged to any members"
>
> Below is a copy of a logged IRC discussion I had with Steven Haigh.
>
> [19:19] <`2L> "We are currently going through the process of
incorporation"
> [19:19] <`2L> What happened to no membership fees?
> [19:19] <CRC> just cos we're incorporating, doesn't mean to say we have to
> charge fees
> [19:20] <`2L> it does in the assoc. rules we have
> [19:20] <`2L> I posted the quote to the list
> [19:20] <`2L> Any association must, by law have a minimum joining fee of
$1
> [19:20] <CRC> and.....
> [19:20] <`2L> and a yearly membership renewal fee of at least $2/pa
> [19:21] <CRC> so we have a $2 membership fee
> [19:21] <`2L> $2......$35.......it's still a fee
> [19:21] <CRC> but not to access the network... people can access the
network
> without paying :)
> [19:22] <`2L> How is PLI being covered?
> [19:22] <CRC> we're not having it
> [19:22] <CRC> we don't feel the need under out intended structure
> [19:23] <`2L> so your going to have an assoc. with really, 0 members.
> [19:23] <CRC> no
> [19:23] <`2L> who do you think seriously would pay a membership fee unless
> they had to?
> [19:23] <CRC> I don't have time to fully explain now, I have lots to do
for
> this submission, and under 48 hours to go
> [19:24] <CRC> maybe not a $35 fee, but who cares about $2?
>

First of all, I find it low that what I was led to believe was a private
discussion re policies be made public like this - as there is a large
possibility that my opinions may be wrong with the official statement and
decision that we present as a final proposal to the members for voting. But,
I'm not going to gripe and moan. I haven't read all of the model rules of
association, as this shows, but I am assured by most of the people in the
WGSturcture working group, who were given this task to do by a vote at the
meeting, that this is a great guide, so I am trusting the group that have
done the most research on this matter. I will be meeting with the
WGStructure group later in the week to further discuss these matters.

I could also continue this discussion to show your personal opinions of
myself, but I shall refrain from the mud-slinging in a public forum.

> The day after this discussion, the following was added to the FAQ @
> www.wireless.org.au
>
> Q. 1.7. You cant fool me, all this cannot be for free! There must be a
plan
> to charge for membership in the future?!?
> A. A part of the above proposal, there will be a nominal membership fee.
> This fee will be something like $2.00, enough to cover the manufacturing
> cost of the membership card.

Ok... it seems to me that we've got our terms mixed up in a couple of
areas...  Keep in mind that the FAQ is not maintained by myself. Under the
proposal as it currently stands, you do not need to be a member of the
proposed association to access the network. Membership will allow you to
vote, and also give you many other privaliges that we will offer to
association members. *** Access to the network will remain free ***

> Why does it seem to me that the required membership fee is going to be
> hidden under  the "manufacturing cost of the membership card"? You are
aware
> that as an association you are required to have open books to members and
> government? If you disguise the membership fee under the card, you will be
> in quite serious trouble with the governement, if you don't disguise the
> fee, members will realise they ARE actually paying a membership fee,
> something that as you stated above, Melbourne Wireless WOULD NOT do.

Yes, open books is not a problem... this is our policy from the start and is
currently in place. members are paying a membership fee to join the
association - not to access the network. Any member of the public will be
able to access the network without paying a membership fee.

>
> "Melbourne Wireless was started to address many useability problems with
the
> major Internet Service Providers in existence. These issues include, but
are
> not limited to:
> . Limited transfer speeds
> . Limited transfer quotas
> . Users not allowed to run servers
> . Extra costs associated with static addresses
> . High per megabyte excess charges
> . Limited availability of broadband technologies"
>
> Why not just say, it's us V's the IPS's!! Are you wanting to get laws
> changed so that groups like yours ARE illegal? Who pays $10,000+/pa
carriers
> licence fees to the government? The ISP's. Who doesn't? Us. Who do you
think
> the government is going to care about more? Them.

We also state publicly that we don't want to replace ISPs, infact our long
term plans also include working *with* ISPs. Most ISPs don't need carrier
licenses. There are only 100 Carrier licenses in existance - and a lot more
ISPs than that.

>
> "At this stage Melbourne Wireless does not have any major points of
> difference with the provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1992
although
> we reserve the right to change this view if, on closer reading it becomes
> apparent that the Act contains provisions contrary to the aims and objects
> of Melbourne Wireless. "
>
> If upon closer reading? Why not just say, the document is too big, we
didn't
> really bother reading the whole thing, but we're hoping we are right.

If you wish to read and understand the application of 2 x complete acts in
under 21 days, then go ahead. It takes legal professionals *years* to
completly understand these laws - time that we do not have. We're only
volunteers who don't wish to make a full time job of Melbourne Wireless - as
such it is almost impossible to cover *everything*. Although if you wish to
read and understand the acts and share your knowledge, by all means, feel
free. Our main advice came from the ACA and reading relavent sections of the
various Acts - including the Trade Practices Act etc.

>
> "To link this network to the Internet to allow people to access this
service
> at no charge or at minimal cost."
>
> Yet again, this is stating you are in oposition to ISP's, but we wanna do
> what IPS's pay your $10,000/year to do, for nothing.
>

Not really. We are currently researching options available to us at this
time to allow full, legal operation for Melbourne Wireless as an Association
and not need to spend members finances on things like carrier licenses.

>
> Regards, Craig Mead
>



To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message