No subject

incorporated by 21st June.

> It doesn't have to be Telstra lawyer blitzkrieg either.  It could be
> Megalink.  It could be the ISP industry group.  Or new and adverse
> legislation coming out of the inquiry.  Or it could be an official
> departmental ruling that doesn't go our way.  One signature, from
> someone more senior than whoever it was you spoke to.  A few long
> lunches and a word in someone's ear.

This would also contravene the authority of Garry to talk on behalf of the
ACA - if they can't get their own stories right, then what use are they to
the general public? Discussions held with the ACA are bonding, as the
representative is employed by the ACA, and it is therefore their duty to
correctly advise the public.

> When you were elected president, you agreed to the duties of that
> office, which we all voted on.  That was a legal and moral contract
> between yourself and everyone else.  This action contravenes the
> letter of that agreement, let alone the spirit.  And it would be a
> failure of my duties as secretary, responsible for the regulatory
> compliance of the association, not to raise this with you.

I'm glad you raised it - then I can clarify my position.

> Clae David Gason
> Secretary,
> Wireless.org.au
>
>
> ----------------
> ***  Licensing Issues
> ----------------
>
> Clae wrote:
> >Steven Haigh wrote:
> >
> >>in fact any member of the public
> >
> >not according to the legislation
>
> http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~mesh/doc/2001-10-25-aca-answer.txt
>
> have a good look at the last part of the questionnaire at the bottom
> of http://www.wireless.org.au/wiki/?TheEvolvingFAQ .
>
> ---
>
> Carriage licensing questionnaire
> /snip/
> Question 2:  Is/are the network unit(s) used to provide carriage
> services to the public?
>
> Question 3:  Is/are the network unit(s) solely used for the purpose
> of  providing carriage services on a non-commercial basis?
>
> Further action
>
> If you reached Question 3 and answered NO to that question THEN YOU
> NEED TO APPLY FOR A CARRIER LICENSE (my emphasis)
>
> ---
>
> so that means:  Free public access = carrier licence.   End of story
> until we are told otherwise IN WRITING.
>

The legislation in the Telecommunications Act 1997 does give an exemption
for non-commercial activities when it comes to carrier licenses... What is
not defined, is the term "non-commercial". The fact stands that if we do not
charge any money, then we cannot possibly be a commercial entity. This would
exclude us from needing a carrier license. When I talked to Garry regarding
a cost-recovery method of supplying Internet connectivity, this is where
there was some gray areas. Free access cannot be taken as a commercial
activity, and therefore allows us to operate without a carriers license.

> --------------------------------
>
> From: "Steven Haigh" <netwiz at optushome.com.au>
> To: "Media Releases" <glenvale at glenv.com.au>
> Subject: Melbourne Wireless Press Release - For Immediate Release!
> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 19:39:12 +1000
> Organization: Melbourne Wireless

Media release pruned - it's at http://www.wireles.org.au/media/press anyhow
if you still want to read it.



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