[MLB-WIRELESS] Public internet access

[Simon (NodeIRC)]

Well then let's get the infrastructure that would be good enough to be
commercial in place first, then when we are ready we will put out
expression of interest forms to those who would like Internet Access,
and then we will work out how much it would cost per interested user
to offer Internet Access

(Carrier License Application Fee + Carrier License Annual Fee +
Upstream ISP Costs /divided by number of interested Internet users)

If there were say around 50 interested Internet users though MW, then
that would be $64 year/$5.33 month + Upstream ISP Costs. Commercially
it is completely feasable.


> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:35:27 +1000
> From: Steven Haigh <netwiz at crc.id.au>
> Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Public internet access
> To: Dan Flett <conhoolio at hotmail.com>
> Cc: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> Message-ID: <4C96D830-C415-4AF3-9B75-49634D50CCAA at crc.id.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On 20/09/2006, at 4:07 PM, Dan Flett wrote:
> > My personal preference would be for us to exploit the "non-commercial"
> > exemption.  I feel that it has not been properly explored.  The
> > ultimate
> > goal (I think) would be for us to be able to allow our members to
> > share
> > their personal internet connection on - at most - a cost-recovery
> > basis, and
> > to allow Melbourne Wireless to handle the authenitcation side of
> > things and
> > to provide a unified logon method to any Internet that anyone
> > choses to
> > provide to the network.
> >
> >> The difficulty in obtaining a carrier licence for coverage of
> >> Melbourne
> >> Wireless Group would be that, from my understanding of its
> >> operation, it is
> >> the individual members who own the base stations.  Therefore under
> >> section
> >> 42 requirements each individual owner would need to have a carrier
> >> licence
> >> or a nominated carrier licence in force.
> >
> > Again, they wouldn't if they could satisfactorialy prove they were
> > non-commerical.  One of the tests  of non-commerciality (from the
> > ACMA's own
> > fact sheet) is whether or not a contract has been entered in to -
> > i.e. pay
> > us money, we give you internet.  If the payment of a membership fee
> > could be
> > proved to not be linked to the provision of Internet access, then I
> > believe
> > that no contract has been made and the arrangement is therefore
> > non-commercial.
>
> Interestingly enough, I received a letter back from the minister for
> communications in the past few months. I wrote to them to ask if we
> would qualify for a ministerial exemption for the carrier license as
> we are a non-profit and community group. Below is the reply in full.
>
> ########### BEGIN LETTER ###############
> Dear Mr Haigh,
>
> CARRIER LICENSING AND EXEMPTIONS
>
> Thank you for your email of 5 March 2006 to the Minister for
> Communications, Information Technology and the Arts concerning the
> operations of Melbourne Wireless and seeking advice on carrier
> license exemptions. The Minister has asked me to reply on her behalf.
> I apologise for the delay in responding.
>
> As you would be aware telecommunications licensing is managed by the
> Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). ACMA recommends
> that persons or businesses wishing to apply for a carrier licence, a
> nominated carrier declaration, or operating as a service provider
> should familiarise themselves with these provisions of the
> Telecommuncations Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer
> Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999.
>
> The Telecommunications Act (Section 51) allows the Minister to grant
> an exemption from the obligation to hold a telecommunications carrier
> license. While this power exists, its use is limited. The obligation
> to hold a carrier license and the related requirements associated
> with being a licensed carrier are important to assure strong law
> enforcement, consumer protection and service standards are met.
>
> As a general rule, carrier license exemptions are only granted in
> exceptional circumstances and where the exemption would not have a
> negative impact on, or would benefit, the long term interested of
> telecommunications users. An important consideration in this regard
> is whether the exempted operator would compete with, and be
> advantaged relative to commercial providers.
>
> To ensure the similar treatment of fixed line and wireless networks
> under the Telecommunications Act, a Ministerial Determination was
> issued in 2002 so that operators of wireless local area networks that
> provide services and single premises did not require a carrier
> license or nominated carrier declaration.
>
> While I appreciate that you consider the service that you provide
> offer community benefits, it would also be offered in competition
> with other licensed operators as a commercial venture. As such, any
> exemption would not be competitively neutral. It is unlikely,
> therefore, that a carrier license exemption would be granted in these
> circumstances.
>
> The Government recognises that license fees should not present an
> unreasonable barrier to entry for telecommunications service
> providers. In line with this, the carrier license charges were
> significantly reduced on 1 July 2004. The carrier license application
> charge was decreased from $10,000 to $2,200 and the fixed component
> of the annual carrier license charge fell from $10,000 to less than
> $1,000. Several small scale service providers have applied for, and
> received, carrier licenses under this reduced fee structure.
>
> Detailed information on carrier licensing and carriage service
> provider obligations is provided by the ACMA at http://
> www.acma.gov.au (licensing), or can be obtained by calling Mr Peter
> Skeen, Assistant Manager, Telecommunications Licensing on 03 9963 6707.
>
> Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Minister's attention.
>
> Yours sincerely
> <signature>
> JEREMY FIELDS
> Assistant Adviser
> ############### END LETTER ##################
>
> In the general drift of this letter, it looks like as we might offer
> a service in the present, or future that would compete with the
> telcos etc, that we would not be granted an exemption from the
> carrier licensing schemes.
>
> I am currently looking at writing a reply, however if anyone would
> like to help out on this to help convey our message to the Minister,
> then please feel free to contact me :)
>
> --
> Steven Haigh
>
> Email: netwiz at crc.id.au
> Web: http://www.crc.id.au
> Phone: (03) 9017 0597 - 0412 935 897