[MLB-WIRELESS] Melbournes Broadband Enquiry Submission

[Craig Mead]

I just had a read through Melbourne Wireless' Broadband Enquiry Submission.
While there are some valid points there are also some points which cause
concern among myself and others from various other groups
(Bris/Melb/Syd/Adelaide/Gympie).

To start, I was just wondering who was working on this submission. I had a
look @ http://www.wireless.org.au/wiki/?WGInquiry and read through the basic
information there but there was not by a long reach anything near a final
submission. Also, in the task list, there is a point "Liaise with Sydney,
other freenets" to my knowledge (and to everyone elses) there has been NO
liasing WHATSOEVER with Sydney and from my discussions with other group
members, anyone else. Can you please clarify who the "team" was and with
what people from what states you "liased" with in the writing of this
submission?

Another point in your task list was "Submit draft to membership X days
before due date."

I do not recall seeing a post on the mailing list regarding this submission,
and since you were still working on a final draft the on Monday night when
it was due Wednesday, I don't see how the membership was asked for input on
the final document.

(all quotes from http://www.wireless.org.au/media/press/winquiry.pdf which,
as understood is the final submission to the government on behalf of
"Melbourne Wireless")

"Inquiry into Broadband Technologies Submission by Melbourne Wireless"


"Melbourne Wireless represents over 500 like-minded individuals in Victoria,
and
through the wireless.org.au initiative, thousands more around Australia and
New
Zealand."

I was unaware that Melbourne Wireless represented thousands more around
Australia and New Zealand? Is this not what Steven and others from MW had
against other groups stating that they represented areas which infact, they
did not?

"We are currently going through the process of incorporation and show no
signs of slowing down in the exponential growth that has been observed in
the past 18 months."

combined with a fact further on in the document

"No access fee can be charged to any members"

Below is a copy of a logged IRC discussion I had with Steven Haigh.

[19:19] <`2L> "We are currently going through the process of incorporation"
[19:19] <`2L> What happened to no membership fees?
[19:19] <CRC> just cos we're incorporating, doesn't mean to say we have to
charge fees
[19:20] <`2L> it does in the assoc. rules we have
[19:20] <`2L> I posted the quote to the list
[19:20] <`2L> Any association must, by law have a minimum joining fee of $1
[19:20] <CRC> and.....
[19:20] <`2L> and a yearly membership renewal fee of at least $2/pa
[19:21] <CRC> so we have a $2 membership fee
[19:21] <`2L> $2......$35.......it's still a fee
[19:21] <CRC> but not to access the network... people can access the network
without paying :)
[19:22] <`2L> How is PLI being covered?
[19:22] <CRC> we're not having it
[19:22] <CRC> we don't feel the need under out intended structure
[19:23] <`2L> so your going to have an assoc. with really, 0 members.
[19:23] <CRC> no
[19:23] <`2L> who do you think seriously would pay a membership fee unless
they had to?
[19:23] <CRC> I don't have time to fully explain now, I have lots to do for
this submission, and under 48 hours to go
[19:24] <CRC> maybe not a $35 fee, but who cares about $2?

The day after this discussion, the following was added to the FAQ @
www.wireless.org.au

Q. 1.7. You cant fool me, all this cannot be for free! There must be a plan
to charge for membership in the future?!?
A. A part of the above proposal, there will be a nominal membership fee.
This fee will be something like $2.00, enough to cover the manufacturing
cost of the membership card.

Why does it seem to me that the required membership fee is going to be
hidden under  the "manufacturing cost of the membership card"? You are aware
that as an association you are required to have open books to members and
government? If you disguise the membership fee under the card, you will be
in quite serious trouble with the governement, if you don't disguise the
fee, members will realise they ARE actually paying a membership fee,
something that as you stated above, Melbourne Wireless WOULD NOT do.


"Melbourne Wireless was started to address many useability problems with the
major Internet Service Providers in existence. These issues include, but are
not limited to:
• Limited transfer speeds
• Limited transfer quotas
• Users not allowed to run servers
• Extra costs associated with static addresses
• High per megabyte excess charges
• Limited availability of broadband technologies"

Why not just say, it's us V's the IPS's!! Are you wanting to get laws
changed so that groups like yours ARE illegal? Who pays $10,000+/pa carriers
licence fees to the government? The ISP's. Who doesn't? Us. Who do you think
the government is going to care about more? Them.


"At this stage Melbourne Wireless does not have any major points of
difference with the provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 although
we reserve the right to change this view if, on closer reading it becomes
apparent that the Act contains provisions contrary to the aims and objects
of Melbourne Wireless. "

If upon closer reading? Why not just say, the document is too big, we didn't
really bother reading the whole thing, but we're hoping we are right.


"To link this network to the Internet to allow people to access this service
at no charge or at minimal cost."

Yet again, this is stating you are in oposition to ISP's, but we wanna do
what IPS's pay your $10,000/year to do, for nothing.



Regards, Craig Mead


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