<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.18.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 08:14 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 01/06/2010, at 7:31 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Actually, no, that would be a good idea, for when the ACMA run out of money, to easily locate and prosecute the wifi AP operators for operating with[out] a carrier license
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
(deep breath)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Okay, Noel. Please, tells us: Why does an open WiFi provider need a carrier
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
license?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Your time starts... now.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
aww forgive me for being a day late, I'm not well (no comments from peanut gallery), so avoiding looking at bright lights.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
if you provide internet access that crosses the boundary of your property, you need one, be it charged or non charged access.<BR>
Property is IIRC defined as home= land boundary, unit = unit walls boundary, shop = shop property, IOW, not the entire complex.<BR>
unless they changed this in the past five or six years which knowing the ACMA, I sincerely doubt.<BR>
<BR>
(I was an early member of bris mesh, much debate about offering access to the net as is being mentioned here, the committee at the time went through all the legal angles and were told this.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>