[MLB-WIRELESS] A letter I got....

[KevinL]

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:51, Fenn Bailey wrote:
> The practicality of applying this legistlation to an ad-hoc wireless
> network sounds very interesting indeed. However, if the network is not
> owned by any entity and is merely an informal agreement to communicate
> in a certain standard, I can't really see how a 'governing body' can be
> expected to be able to intercept/monitor the whole lot.

The catch here, to date, is that if the network is an informal agreement
to communicate, then every bit of communication traversing anyone's node
is third-party traffic (and thus illegal unless all parties are
telcos).  If it's not, then we're an organisation with a network (and
should be a telco).

It's a neat little catch-22.  Unofficially melb-wireless has decided to
ignore it, afaics, because there's no clear cast-in-stone judgement
about our sort of operation and various people believe it shouldn't be a
problem (I'll note that that belief is backed by what should constitute
reasonable advice, but not by a ministerial determination).

People should be aware, though, that by the letter of the law as it
currently stands, what we're doing is probably illegal - where probably
means "if it goes nasty, you'll need a lawyer well versed in telco law
to argue your case in court".

There was a report tabled the other day (the wireless broadband inquiry)
that recommended, among other things, removing any legislative barriers
to small ISP's doing wireless broadband connectivity to the 'net.  It
was aimed at provision of services to rural and regional areas that
can't get other alternatives easily, but it might be a useful step
forward.  Report is at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/cita/Wbt/report.htm

The hope, as always, is that someone steps up to the plate and clearly
says "from this day forward, community groups are allowed to do traffic
across unlicenced spectrum wireless networks unimpeded".  I doubt
that'll happen, if for no other reason than that every other wide-area
network falls under the telecommunications act, which requires (amongst
other things) interception capabilities - and the gummint isn't about to
let that requirement slip in the current climate.

So:  Either melb-wireless is an organisation with a network (in which
case, there's no third-party restrictions on traffic within our circle
of influence (thus melb-wireless doesn't have to be a telco), but we
probably have the legal requirement to be able to intercept traffic, and
melb-wireless the organisation bears the brunt of any legal action); or
we're a loose collective of like-minded people (in which case there's
third party restrictions on traffic, and we're all individuals in the
eyes of the law).  Or some other third option, which we all hope for but
which hasn't been clearly stated by anyone in power.

(Side-note:  I'm not convinced the actual ownership of the hardware
relates to the question above:  If members of melb-wireless essentially
loaned the gear, is melb-wireless still responsible for the actions of
the group with that gear?  It would seem to be, in my mind, but this is
way outside knowing without a law degree.)

KJL
(demolishing plausible deniability)


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