[MLB-WIRELESS] Public internet access

[Dan Flett]

Hi Zik,

>I'm a newcomer to Melbourne Wireless and I know this topic has come up
>time and time again - how to legally provide internet access via
>Melbourne Wireless - but I'd like to dig up this topic once again.
>Since I'm only new here I hope I haven't repeated the mistakes of
>others before me. But here's what I'm thinking anyway:

Yes it has come up before, and it will again and again until the membership 
feels it has been resolved.  We need to keep talking about this, because the 
issue of Internet on our network is like a 500-pound gorilla sitting in the 
corner.

>To me the most compelling feature Melbourne Wireless could offer is
>internet access for its members. I know it already happens through
>"private arrangements" at the moment but it's still not something
>Melbourne Wireless can offer officially. And to go a step further I'd
>personally like to offer wireless internet to the public in my
>locality - and I'd like to do it legally and without going broke in
>the process.

You're not alone here - many of us would like to do the same but are afraid 
of some very large, very grey areas of the regulations and legislation.  As 
I will discuss below, this sort of Internet re-broadcasting is allowed in 
many other western industrialised nations and and has, funnily enough, not 
resulted in chaos but has provided positive benefits to the community.

>I've been having an email conversation with Gary Fraser from the ACMA
>about this. I know other people have tried this in the past and have
>come up against the obstacle of us not being a "commercial" operation.
>I decided to explore what a "not quite commercial but still a carrier"
>approach might involve by asking him what it would take for Melbourne
>Wireless to get a full carrier license. Here's what he said:
>
>-------------------------
>Under the Telecommunications Act 1997, there is no restriction on the
>installation and ownership of telecommunications infrastructure.  However,
>the Act provides under section 42 that the owner of a network unit must not
>use that network unit, or allow other persons to use that network unit, to
>supply carriage services to the public unless the owner holds a carrier
>licence or a nominated carrier declaration is in force in relation to the
>unit or an exemption applies.

My personal preference would be for us to exploit the "non-commercial" 
exemption.  I feel that it has not been properly explored.  The ultimate 
goal (I think) would be for us to be able to allow our members to share 
their personal internet connection on - at most - a cost-recovery basis, and 
to allow Melbourne Wireless to handle the authenitcation side of things and 
to provide a unified logon method to any Internet that anyone choses to 
provide to the network.

>The difficulty in obtaining a carrier licence for coverage of Melbourne
>Wireless Group would be that, from my understanding of its operation, it is
>the individual members who own the base stations.  Therefore under section
>42 requirements each individual owner would need to have a carrier licence
>or a nominated carrier licence in force.

Again, they wouldn't if they could satisfactorialy prove they were 
non-commerical.  One of the tests  of non-commerciality (from the ACMA's own 
fact sheet) is whether or not a contract has been entered in to - i.e. pay 
us money, we give you internet.  If the payment of a membership fee could be 
proved to not be linked to the provision of Internet access, then I believe 
that no contract has been made and the arrangement is therefore 
non-commercial.

>In answer to your specific question regarding licensing, any person may
>apply to ACMA for a carrier licence, so long as the person is:
>
>        a constitutional corporation; or
>        an eligible partnership; or
>        a public body.
>-------------------------
>
>My interpretation of this is that if Melbourne Wireless became an
>incorporated company (it may be already?) then it may be possible to
>operate under a single license. Failing this each of us would have to
>get a separate carrier license - which I'm guessing might be quite a
>hassle and potentially more expensive.
>
>The problem with us operating under a company umbrella is that the
>equipment is owned by us and not the company. I'm currently asking
>Gary if we could operate under a single license if the Melbourne
>Wireless company leases equipment from each of us for a nominal fee.
>The idea is to use this technicality to place the licensing of the
>equipment under Melbourne Wireless rather than each of us having to be
>individually licensed. We'll see how that goes.

Personally I'm not in favour of this sort of thing as we are a hobby 
organisation, and having to make these sorts of arrangement is kind-of 
forcing us to behave like a telco.  As a hobby organisation we like to not 
be bound by traditional models of telecommunication - we like to experiment 
with new technologies and new ways of providing access.  The governemt likes 
to talk about legislation being "technology neutral" but then you get the 
ACMA talking about "base stations" and "customer equipment" - fairly 
specific terms that refer to traditional telco setups, but not necessarily 
to us.  The ACMA exists to enforce the law and really it's not their fault 
that they have so many complicated and unclear regulations to enforce.  If 
we really want change we should be lobbying their political masters and 
building political support, not arguing semantics with the ACMA.

Under broadcasting law, there is provision for Community broadcaster 
licences, which as far as I'm aware, do not carry licence fees.  Why can't 
there be a similar type of licence for non-profit Community telco groups?  
These are the questions we should be asking of those in power.

>Another possibility is to investigate the "nominated carrier
>declaration" he mentions and see if that can be used somehow.
>
>The other big question about getting a carrier license is how much it
>might cost. Gary referred me to this page:
>
>http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.590024:STANDARD::pc=PC_1770
>
>My interpretation of this page is that the bulk of the fee is
>proportional to revenue. So if the Melbourne Wireless company operated
>on a non-profit basis the revenue would be about the same as the
>internet costs. Let's just say that the combined internet costs were
>$10,000 in a year, then the license fee would be around $100 by
>revenue plus the annual fee (which is "cost recovery only"). That
>doesn't sound like it'd be out of our reach.
>
>One nice side-effect of all this is that members who wanted to provide
>internet access to their locality could also do so legally under the
>regulations.

This is a nice idea, but it such a scheme can't be run by volunteers.  As a 
committee member I know that between us all we barely have enough spare time 
to organise the monthly general meetings and commitee meetings.  Of course, 
if there was the ultimate promise of Internet access, there might be more 
people willing to put up their hands.  But the amount of work required is 
also a lot greater, and we need some serious organisation - people who can 
reliably do tasks as needed, on time.  When you're a volunteer it's hard to 
give that commitment.  Community radio and TV stations actually have staff 
that get paid to run the place - we would need to pay people to begin the 
process of running what would effectively be a non-profit wireless ISP.  We 
would need start-up money, which I'm sure no-one would be willing to give us 
given our present state of affairs.  We're not broke but we've yet to prove 
any sort of financial or organisational prowess.

>The last point I wanted to raise was our internet connection. We'd
>need to make an arrangement with an ISP to get an internet link which
>allows the Melbourne Wireless company to re-sell internet access to
>its members (and possibly the public). This would obviously not be
>your plain jane home ADSL connection. But presumably there'd also be
>an economy of scale so I'm hoping it'd be comparably or better priced
>than standard ADSL once the price was shared between us. I have some
>friends in the ISP industry so I may check that side of things out
>soon.

I've been told that, paradoxically, the real cost of a wholesale internet 
feed is *more* expensive than a retail feed.  Why?  Because retail internet 
bandwidth is oversold - your ISP may promise 10GB a month but they're 
betting that you won't download 10GB every month.  For the most part, this 
policy is profitable for them.  That's why they don't want you sharing or 
re-selling your home Internet connection.  It's a bit of a short-sighted 
view in my opinion - as an ISP that did allow sharing or re-selling could 
use this as a marketing ploy to gain market share.  But most ISPs are public 
  companies and so take a conservative approach to their business practices.

Also, once we did a deal with a wholesale ISP - how do we get it out to our 
customers?  With some sort of backbone network - presumably wireless.  Then 
you have the cost of the equipment, the cost of tower access, the cost of 
public liability insurance, and the cost of people maitaining the equipment 
and the network.  As we've seen with places like Node GHO - if you don't 
maintain the gear, things go wrong and a large segment of your network gets 
cut off.   And then there's the administration aspect of complying with the 
law and law enforcement (giving the spooks access to the network), dealing 
with unruly users, marketing and public relations.  All this sounds a lot 
like operating a commercial ISP and sounds like real work and not a 
spare-time hobby.

Personally, I like tinkering with wireless gear and playing with networks, 
in my own time.  I like the idea of a network that I can put into as little 
or as much time as I feel like.  I like the idea of a network that is cheap 
and easy to set up and is largely self-configuring and self-maintaining, and 
that somehow exists underneath the regulatory radar.  A pipe dream or a holy 
grail?  Perhaps.  I certainly don't dream of running my own telco or ISP. :)

>I think if Melbourne Wireless can get a nice official internet thang
>happening it'll become a lot more popular and get a much bigger
>profile in the community.

Yes it would indeed.  But the government, or the regulators don't seem to 
care much about the distinction between Community and Commercial networks.  
It's easier for them if we all fall under the heading of Commercial.   I'd 
really like to know what sort of real-world network falls into their 
definition of non-commercial - because it seems just about every practical 
model we've suggested to them is considered by them to be commercial.  And 
to be honest - why should they care?  They will only change their tune if we 
start making enough noise and somehow get some political clout.  We need to 
make a case that a non-commercial network of the kind we have in mind is in 
the public interest and that Australian society would be better off if we 
were allowed to do what we want to do.  That's our job to make that argument 
- not theirs.  If we ever choose to go down the route of political lobbying 
we can certainly make the case that countries with less telco regulation - 
such as Germany and the US - have thriving non-profit wireless networks that 
are truly benefiting their comminities - and yet somehow their commercial 
telco infrastructure hasn't ground to a halt because of not enough 
regulation.  Technological innovation in general in this country is probably 
being discouraged because of over-regulation in many areas.

Ahhh, that felt good. :)

Cheers,

Dan