Do your country's Telco Regs help or hinder community networks?

[George Lathrop]

You Might want to post this to the Tech. List. Many of the the folks do 
not subscribe to the talk list.
It sounds like there is wiggle room. Corp. Hire experts to exploit the 
wiggle. One notion comes to mind. Keep up the dialog with the person who 
wrote the boilerplate reply. Point out that you are not a telicom and 
the do not compete rules [ They really slipped that one by in the 
legislation] Don't apply as you will be connecting through standard 
standard telicom routes. Using words like community access. Low income 
Etc. can only help. One other possibility is to get the town council on 
board and do the federal gov. thing through them. Local gov. sponsorship 
requires at least 1 representative that you can talk to and can 
understand the black box technicalities. The central folks apparently 
have the ability to approve. Its harder to say no to a municpal demo. 
than to someone asking random questions.

Dan Flett wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm Dan Flett, I'm the President of Melbourne Wireless, a community wireless
> group in Australia. Like most of you, we aim to create a non-profit
> city-wide network. I'm guessing almost all of you are creating your network
> to distribute Internet access to your members and/or the general community.
> 
> We would like to do the same, but the problem in Australia is that we need
> permission from the Fex deral Government to do so.
> 
> Broadband is a fairly scarce resource here, and it isn't nearly as cheap or
> as fast here as in other parts of the world. To provide a reasonable level
> of Internet access to our network, we would need to cover our costs. In
> order to receive payment in return for internet access in Australia, you
> need to have a Carrier Licence. And if you have a Carrier Licence or operate
> any sort of ISP you are subject to all sorts of regulations, including the
> requirement to provide wiretap access to your network to law enforcement.
> 
> Basically, in Australia only commercial Telcos registered with the
> Government can offer Internet access and receive money for it - even if it's
> only on a cost-recovery basis. The regulatory burden placed on ISPs means
> that no volunteer-run non-profit organisation can afford the licence fees or
> keep up with the paperwork involved with providing internet access.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing if there are similar regulations in other
> countries. What regulations is your network subject to? Are individuals or
> organisations subject to rules or regulations when they (legally) share or
> resell their internet access? Do commercial ISPs in your country see
> community networks as competitors?
> 
> The letter below is a reply to a query from my predecessor, Melbourne
> Wireless President Steven Haigh, from the Australian Federal Department of
> Communications - the office of the Minister Helen Coonan.  Steven was asking
> the Minister to make a "Ministerial Exemption" to exempt Melbourne Wireless
> from needing a Carrier Licence. It pretty plainly spells out the
> government's current attitude towards community wireless networks.
> 
> Frankly, it is embarrassing to see how backward their thinking is.
> 
> The major telcos in Australia are complaining about being over-regulated and
> being not allowed to roll out Broadband networks on their terms. Australia
> has a relatively low penetration of Broadband Internet, despite Australians
> generally being early-adopters of new technologies. If the telco regulators
> in Australia were serious about encouraging the proliferation of Broadband,
> non-profit networks like Melbourne Wireless wouldn't be a threat to
> commercial operators. I believe we could quite happily offer Internet on a
> non-profit, best-effort basis and no commercial operator would notice.
> 
> I eagerly await your feedback on this issue!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dan Flett
> 
> President, Melbourne Wireless
> Melbourne, Australia
> http://melbournewireless.org.au
> president at melbournewireless.org.au
>  
> 
> #### BEGIN LETTER TO 2006 MELBOURNE WIRELESS PRESIDENT FROM AUSTRALIAN
> GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE ####
> 
> 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 www.acma.gov.au (licensing), or can
> be obtained by calling Mr Peter Skeen, Assistant Manager, Telecommunications
> Licensing on 03 #### ####.
> 
> Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Minister's attention.
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> <signature>
> 
> JEREMY FIELDS
> 
> Assistant Adviser
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> Talk at seattlewireless.net
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 
> 
>