[MLB-WIRELESS] Re: Providing free *real* internet access to the community...

[Richard Ap-Thomas]

Wow Tom, didn't think the ACA would actually give answers, good stuff :)
Just thinking that their definition of 'the public' seems pretty broad. 
Like, your neighbour is the public, but would another house on the same 
property be public? Or another flat in the same block of flats? I was 
going to suggest that requiring a username/password would therefore make 
them no longer 'the public', but somehow I think their definition covers 
everyone not in the same house. :-/

Rowan charging/getting donations  for laptop configuration really sounds 
like the best bet, keeps it as far away from the wireless service as 
possible, or you could just sell them a bottle of soft drink and a 
couple of stamps ;-)

Richard.

Tom Fifield [gummAY] wrote:

> Just thought I'd throw this into the current discussion to perhaps 
> clear a few point up.
>
> Last August I sent an email query to the ACA with regards to sharing 
> internet over a wireless connection, they took about a month to 
> respond but the information is useful.
>
> The most important thing I think I got out of this was you are not 
> allowed to receive any form of tangible reward for sharing a internet 
> over a wireless connection.
>
> If you were in my area looking for an Internet connection, come on in 
> and have some coffee and use it inside -- beats the car-on-verge 
> anyday :)
>
> Tom Fifield
>
> ---
>
> Tom,
>
> I understand from your email that you propose to use a network unit to 
> supply Internet access via wireless to other users. The network is 
> therefore being used to supply carriage services (data is a carriage 
> service) to the public. The concept of supplying to the public is 
> discussed in section 44 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act), 
> and in that regard you are supplying ouside your"immediate circle". 
> Section 41 states that the owner of a network unit that is used to 
> supply carriage services to the public must hold a carrier licence.
>
> However as long as you are not receiving any monetary payment or other 
> form of tangible reward from the supply of carriage services over the 
> network unit you can claim exemption on the grounds of 
> 'non-commercial' use in regard to section 34 of the Act , being the 
> use of a base station which is part of a terrestrial 
> radiocommunications customer access network .
>
> Note that the exemption on the grounds of 'non-commercial' use is only 
> available in regard to the use of a designated radiocommunication 
> facility which is a base station that is part of a terrestrial 
> radiocommunications customer access network. This means that an 
> exemption on the grounds of 'non-commercial' use cannot be claimed for 
> single line links or multiple line links.
>
> Thowever(sic), the splitting of the bill with your neighbour would not 
> qualify as 'non-commercial' as you are gaining an advantage by 
> providing the service to your neighbour. He will be paying for half 
> the cost of supply which is an advantage to you. You would need to 
> supply your neighbour for free to be classified as non-commercial.
>
> Statutory distances are not applicable in regard to designated 
> radiocommunications. The signal only needs to be between two points. 
> However line links, such as cable, are restricted by statutory 
> distances between distinct places.
>
> I would also caution you that the ISP or the provider of the ADSL line 
> may have some concern regarding what you propose. I am certainly not 
> qualified to comment, however you may want to look at the service 
> agreements with these entities.
>
> Regards
> Gary Fraser
>
> Licensing and National Interests Team
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message


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