[WG-PR] Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Press Release

[Greg]

Dwayne you have waaay too much time on your hands;-)

BUT I agree with the the concerns you raise here.

I am disappointed that this "Urgent" Press Release has gone out without the
approval of many of us.

I get the notion we just declared war!?

----- Original Message -----
From: "dwayne" <dwayne at pobox.com>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Cc: <wgpublicrelations at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WG-PR] Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Press Release


> Steven Haigh wrote:
> >
> > These possiblity of press releases has been spoken about and generally
> > approved at a number of WGStructure meetings.
>
> 1: define "generally"
> 2: right, I'm going to all of them from now on, no matter how ill I am.
> 3: if the working group approved such a press release, they're as silly
> as you are for writing it.
> 4: that's not their mandate, if anyone's it'd be WG-PR and I'm not sure
> we have formalised procedures for sending PR out yet.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, look, we'll see what happens but from where I sit you just drew a
> big line in the sand in front of the telcos and said "I dare ya!"
>
> We'll just leave it as read that some of them are the biggest
> corporations and individuals in Australia.
>
> > 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...
>
>
> Can you get this in writing, please?
>
> Until I see it in writing it amounts to exactly zero to me.
> This is all legal stuff and I absolutely will not do something
> potentially illegal on a verbal assurance.
> So, can you call him back and ask him to post (not fax or email) a
> summary of your conversation to you, or us?
>
> Not that I don't believe you, i'd be pretty boggled if you were making
> this up, but it's just hearsay until it's in writing on paper with a
> letterhead above it and a signature under it.
>
>
>
>
> Feel free, anyone else, to point out if I'm overreacting here.
>
>
>
> > > 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
:)
>
> Steve, what exactly was your purpose in this press release?
>
> Please be specific.
>
>
> I was just thinking "fair enough" to the above comment, but, really, why
> send it out? Do we need more members? Will it help the public to know
> about us before we can provide them with anything?  Pressure the telcos
> into reconsidering their policies?
>
> What were you thinking when you thought "I might write a press release"?
>
> Obviously, not being at the working group meeting, I have no clue as to
> why this was sent out, so I'd like to know.
>
> > > 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.
>
> How is this not throwing down the gauntlet?
>
> > We can offer the same services.
>
> How is this not throwing down the gauntlet?
>
> > We just don't have global
> > connections and as far as I'm concerned, still in the testing stages.
>
> How is this not throwing down the gauntlet before you have put on your
> armour?
>
> > This was discussed at the last WGStructure meeting.
>
> [kicks self. really hard]
>
> > We all agreed that it
> > would not be worth their time
>
>
>
>
> Okay, for the record, you guys do not have the right to take such
> decisions on our behalf.
> Unless we agreed to it at that monthly meeting, but I don't recall this
> being the case.
>
>
>
> > - just think of all the bad media etc that
> > their companies would get when trying to smudge out a small community
> > group...
>
> Gee, let's see, BHP sued Greenpeace over something they knew they were
> in the wrong over, and so did Greenpeace.  Greenpeace won, BHP appealed.
> This went on and on, BHP knowing they had the money behind them.
>
> Eventually Greenpeace could not afford the next appeal, at which point
> *they had no choice* but to settle them out of court. This cost
> Greenpeace their legal budget for the year, eventually most of their
> operating budget, and the old-guard hippies were forced out of
> Greenpeace and the new, fiscally-conscious suits took over, and we now
> have Greenpeace selling raffle for houses in Queensland to raise funding
> (which is when i dropped my membership).
>
> Nope, they'd not go after us, it'd be bad for their PR.
>
>
> Steve:  consider Telstra. Consider how they deal with their customers.
>
> I'm sure they are worried about their PR. Totally.
>
>
> > It simply wouldn't be worth their time.
>
> But if it is worth their money it will be worth their time, and you are
> saying we will poach your customers.
>
> > 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.
>
> Okay, it's harshness time:
>
> Steve, from where I sit, Melbourne Wireless does not legally exist and
> they will go after YOUR assets. Do you own your own house?
>
> I mean, we're a mailing list and some meetings.  That press release had
> *your* name on it.
>
> > 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.
>
> Excellent. I won't.
> I'll piss off and start a new group which isn't under attack. Enjoy your
> fight.
>
> We'll sing songs about your heroic last stand at pub meets sometimes or
> something.
>
> > From what we've voted on at the last WGStructure meeting, we may be
> > incorporated by 21st June.
>
>
> [notices legs have broken into a kicking frenzy. Frantically attempts to
> stop kicking self to death]
>
> You are of course going to run this by the WG mailing list, or this one,
> or something, right?
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> writing.
> when we have this in writing we'll all be happier and we have something
> to cover us (especially you) with.
>
> > 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.
>
> This was explained to you in the call or you have gleaned it from the
> Act? If from the call, rah rah writing rah rah.
>
> > Media release pruned - it's at http://www.wireles.org.au/media/press
anyhow
>
>
> http://www.wireless.org.au/media/press   <--- fixed.
>
> Dwayne
>
> hey by the way Steve, I think you're a nice guy, so don't get all pissy
> about this, I just think you tend to leap ahead -way- too much.
>
> 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