Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.<br><br>I am NOT a telecoms specialist, but it seems to me that:<br><br><ol><li>The requirement of an approved Industry Development Plan as a prerequisite to a carrier licence application was removed by legislative amendment in September 2005 (Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which made an IDP a condition of a carrier licence,
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/tlaacia2005n1192005763/sch1.html">was repealed</a>). A quick check of the ACMA <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/aca_home/licensing/telcomm/app_form/carlicap.pdf">
Carrier Licence Application Form </a>supports this, as no reference is made to an IDP in the form or checklist, although the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.1900810:STANDARD::pc=PC_578">Guide</a> still refers to IDP's - but hasn't been amended since before the 2005 Amending Act.
<br></li><li>If you really want to apply for a carrier licence, it IS theoretically possible to do so as an incorporated association, although none of the licensees listed on the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.852114:STANDARD::pc=PC_1625">
Register </a>is other than a company, so it might "throw" the ACMA people. This is because a "constitutional corporation" may apply for a licence. The term "corporation" includes companies, incorporated associations and even some unincorporated associations (
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s57a.html">Corporations Act s57A</a>). A "constitutional corporation" is one that is either a foreign corporation, a financial corporation or a trading corporation. The "trading corporation" category is the easiest to satisfy.
</li><li>However, setting up a company isn't expensive these days. The application fee to ASIC is only about $400 or so. The annual return of a Pty Ltd company is very simple. Basically, changes of officeholders and key data must be communicated to ASIC during the year, and an annual statement checked for accuracy (ASIC sends it to you) at year's end. The annual fee is $212 or $40 for a special purpose (not-for-profit)
company.c<br></li><li>It looks as if the carrier licence application fee (of $2200) might be refundable if the application is unsuccessful. (<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s73a.html">
s73A</a>)<br></li><li>Not sure if this could be a goer, but it seems to me that the Minister might be willing to consider an application for a determination exempting Melbourne Wireless from the requirement that it (and its network members) hold a carrier licence. As far as I can tell, there have only been two determinations by the Minister under
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s51.html">s51</a> . One was to rectify an anomaly of double-regulation (re datacasting) and the other reads:<br></li></ol><div style="margin-left: 80px;">
<span style="font-style: italic;">"</span><font style="font-style: italic;" size="3">I, RICHARD KENNETH ROBERT
ALSTON, Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the
Arts, under subsection 51(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1997
('the Act'), determine that section 42 of the Act does not apply
in relation to the fixed radiocommunications links owned by Santos
Ltd (ACN 007 550 923) between Caldina Creek and Moomba, both in the
State of South Australia.</font><span style="font-style: italic;">
"<br><br>(Section 42 is the one that imposes an obligation to hold a carrier licence.)<br></span></div><br><br>That means there's not much of a history of section 51 applications (successful ones, at any rate). But, one of the objects of the Telecommunications Act is
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s3.html">"to promote the supply of diverse and innovative carriage services</a><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s3.html">
and </a><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s3.html">content services</a><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s3.html">"</a><br>so you'd hope they'd be open to considering a network that is really designed to support hobbyists/members, not the general public, especially if that network were willing to put in place any necessary safeguards and promised to "play nicely" in the "public park" of
2.4GHz (or the other one - I'm showing my ignorance now).<br><br>Such an application would be made to the Minister (DCITA). I haven't spotted an application fee anywhere (and I've looked). We could be lucky there. Might be worth a try.
<br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Grace to you,<br>Gráinne