[MLB-WIRELESS] Press Release

[Steven Haigh]

See below for comments. (there's a lot of em ;)

Signed,
Steven Haigh
President - Melbourne Wireless
www.wireless.org.au


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clae" <clae at tpg.com.au>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>; <wgpulicrelations at wireless.org.au>;
<netwiz at optushome.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] Press Release


> Dear Steven,
>
> I've had a bit more of a think about your press release, and there
> are a few points that concern me that I'd like to raise with you.
>
> Firstly, although you pledged at your election to consult with the
> membership, you wrote and released this without speaking AFAIK to
> anyone else.   At an absolute minimum, this should have been run past
> WGPublicRelations, of which I am a member, which it was not.

These possiblity of press releases has been spoken about and generally
approved at a number of WGStructure meetings. We generally agreed that we
would try and have a press release ready for release when a major ISP
drastically changed their policies or had price increases. The timing of
this was a little rushed, but still fits in with what we want to do - and
raising awareness about Melbourne Wireless and it's aims.

> The other concerns I have are detailed in my original reply to you
> below, to which I have added a few points.  I've also added your
> reply about your conversation with someone at the ACA.
>
> A telephone conversation with a public servant at the ACA is not
> worth anything.  Until we have a departmental ruling IN WRITING, or a
> court case, as far as I am concerned our status is grey.  If your
> conversation with the ACA indicated otherwise, it would have been
> prudent of you to let the rest of us, at least the WG, know.  That
> would have been exiting news to hear.  But as things stand, we are
> getting contradictory advice, we haven't spoken to lawyer one, and I
> don't think it is wise to put melbwireless's name behind these kinds
> of statements.  ( See *** below)

I spoke to Garry Fraser (not sure about the last name spelling) at the
ACA... His department deals exclusivly with the telecommunications law,
licensing and specifically 802.11. As a respresentative of the ACA and being
in the department that enforces and regulates licensing, he is in a position
to speak for the ACA when it comes to these matters. After about 1 1/2 hours
talking with Garry, I fully believe that Melbourne Wireless is allowed to
operate as long as no access or membership fees are charges... On a side
note, I'm not sure how this would rest with the ACA folks, as they are
charging a membership fee, which is not covered - therefore they may not be
exempt from a carriers license...

> I realise you don't actually _say_ that we are a wireless ISP.  But
> you definitely imply it, treading an incredibly fine, and
> provocative, line in your wording.

Correct. I don't want to rule out the fact that we may connect to the
Internet as some time in the near future. We can offer the same services at
the moment, and could in fact hook up to the Internet, as long as that
access is free. Something that we have problems finding people to donate :)

> But further, what we can get away with legally is one thing.  What
> you have effectively done is to throw down the gauntlet to the entire
> internet industry in this country, and said that "we will compete
> with you, provide services you cannot provide to your customers,
> poach your existing and new customers, all without paying to enter
> your domain".  That is in effect what your press release says.

Not exactly. The press release focuses on the fact that there is an
alternative to paying for more restricted and more expensive Internet
access. We can offer the same services. We just don't have global
connections and as far as I'm concerned, still in the testing stages.

> As stated at the previous meeting, Megalink for one sees us as a
> direct threat to their business plan.  And they are "merely" a
> multi-million dollar operation.
>
> This is a multi-*billion* dollar industry.  They are not going to sit
> still for this kind of thing.  Look at the way Kerry Packer/PBL (a
> player through NineMSN) have twisted the government's arm over the
> last thirty years over everything from Aussat in the 70s, to the
> introduction of digital television.  They have consistently been able
> to bring about an abortion of a regulatory regime which protects the
> existing behemoths against newcomers, who are also
> multi-million/billion dollar forces.  Do you honestly think they
> would hesitate for a nanosecond to squish some little group of hacker
> weenies who meet in a scout hall once a month?

This was discussed at the last WGStructure meeting. We all agreed that it
would not be worth their time - just think of all the bad media etc that
their companies would get when trying to smudge out a small community
group... It simply wouldn't be worth their time. We don't have any assets
for them to try and take, except for about $130 in the groups funds - which
is nowhere near what it would cost them - that's if a court would even take
their case.

> If we piss these people off enough, then one way or another they are
> going to tear our arses off.  They would be negligent in their duty
> to their shareholders if they didn't.
>
> Quite apart from what they could achieve legislatively - and this is
> I might add extraordinarily bad timing with the current inquiry - is
> what they could achieve in nuisance lawsuits, and other tactics.
> Telstra, Optus et al can afford to throw lawyers at you until the
> heat death of the universe.  And whether their cases have any merit
> or not, you will still be required to defend yourself ($) or forfeit
> (more $).  Are you really willing to stand up against that kind of
> onslaught?

Bottom line, Yes. If Optus or Telstra or whoever decided to sue us (if they
deemed it needed), then I would "fight to the death" to defend Melbourne
Wireless.

> And right now, because we have not incorporated yet, melbwireless is
> effectively YOU.  And possibly myself and Tyson as office bearers.
> Thanks.  One of the things incorporation protects us against is legal
> and financial liability of directors.