[MLB-WIRELESS] Melbournes Broadband Inquiry Submission

Wed May 22 16:35:21 EST 2002

| > 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.

Can you please reply to all relevant portions of an email please?

I still would like to know when the memberbase, WG's and other groups were
contacted regarding their input on the Submission.

Having 9000 unique visitors to your site does NOT mean that people support
your thoughts. Thats like saying 50,000 people visited Telstra/Optus' site
after the new plans were announced, they then write a submission to the
government saying that they are speaking for these people cause they visted
out website. Yes, they probably did all have SOME interest in wireless, it
doesn't mean they want to be represented by you.

|
|
| > "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.

I was using this quote to show the face on incorporation, I was not trying
to falsify your fact of growth.

|
| > 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.

I at no time ever stated that this was a personal discussion, I used a PM
window as both of us were busy at the time and the conversation would have
been lost in the main channel window. You are the president of an
Association, if you are going to tell people facts just to make them happy
cause you think that it won't get back to your membership, I believe you
would be best if you thought about your position and handed it over to
someone who is going to run an association the way it is meant to be run. If
your unsure of any rules, say so or find out facts before speculating.

| 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.

There are facts in your OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION that contradict what
you state are the goals of M/Wireless and also against federal regulation.
This is a bit unprofessional don't you think?

|
| 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 ***

What are the benefits of membership then? And why bother incorporating?

|
| > 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.

See previous point.

This may be the case, but with something as senstive as this maybe wording
some of your statements more carefully should have been considered.

|
| >
| > "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.

I am not making any official submissions to the government without knowing
my facts. If I am unsure, I check. I don't state that I may or may have not
read the approriate section.

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