[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Noel Butler]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:29 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:


> Sec 36 defines "distinct places", and 36(2) does so by reference to
> property
> boundaries.  A line link which crosses a property boundary is
> probably 
> connecting two "distinct places."
> 
> 
> Sec 26 has the threshold that determines whether or not a line link
> connecting
> "distinct places" is a "network unit" for the purpose of the Act.  The
> statutory
> distance is 500m.
> 
> 


Conceeded, they didn't tell us that IIRC, however, we were talking about
a mesh, therefor using external colinear antennae.
which is likely easy to exceed 500m if you live in a high spot, you've
been to Brisbane so are aware it is hilly in many areas with many of
those areas having a good outlook, including my previous address in Red
Hill which had an outlook that covered most of the west and southside,
others involved also were in equally fantastic RF locations, this I'm
sure was mentioned and may be why they were sternly "do not do it".
I was not a party to the communication from the ACMA, but was with all
others given a summary of it.


> 
> 

Back on thread topic again, I see the AFP have an official investigation
into them now underway.

Cheers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100607/88570e26/attachment.html>