[AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention

[Damien Gardner Jnr]

But the customer is located within the facility? They're leasing
hardware/space/etc from you, so they are your tenant - therefore they are
located in the facility?

On 2 March 2015 at 08:26, Nathan Brookfield <
Nathan.Brookfield at simtronic.com.au> wrote:

>  But you are providing said (hosting/colo/dedi/vds) services in multiple
> data centres and the actual customer is not located within that facility, I
> think that one would be hard pressed to stand behind.
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Damien
> Gardner Jnr
> *Sent:* Monday, 2 March 2015 6:32 AM
> *To:* Paul Wilkins
> *Cc:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Welcome to Metadata Retention
>
>
>
> If you're going to quote the Carriage Service definition from the
> Telecommunications Act, you also need to note Section 89, the 'same
> premises' exclusion. This excludes services delivered inside the same
> building, which reads to me that provided you're only supplying internet
> services inside of Datacenters (which most hosting/colo/dedi/vds companies
> do), you're not providing carriage services, and thus aren't affected by
> this bill?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 March 2015 at 02:51, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The fundamental qualifier is whether you provide a 'carriage service', as
> defined by the Telecommunications Act, 1997. (The Broadcasting Services Act
> relies on the definition in the Telco Act).
>
> *carriage service* means a service for carrying communications by means
> of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.
>
>
>
> If you provide a service (or resell a service) for the termination of
> cables or fiber, you're clearly within the scope of the bill.
>
> If you don't touch the physical or data link layers, the bill may or may
> not apply, subject to interpretation and legal argument. It's not clear if
> a communication at the IP layer is to the opposite IP (which arguably
> requires transmission by electromagnetic energy). Then again, IP doesn't
> deal with electromagnetic radiation, so perhaps not, but I wouldn't think
> this a strong argument.
>
> Alternatively, if the communication is viewed as from the IP to the MAC,
> then the communication is local and there is no transmission via
> electromagnetic energy (except from what is local to the NIC chipset).
> Assuming this interpretation, the IP<>IP conversation would be 'content' of
> the MAC<>IP communication, and still remains outside the bill.
>
> As I've said, the lawyers will have a lot of fun with this. I'm not a
> lawyer and don't represent myself as a legal expert. If you need informed
> opinion, consult a legal professional, or ask the advice of the Dep't of
> Communications, who administer both the Telco Act, and the Broadcasting
> Services Act.
>
>
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Damien Gardner Jnr
> VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
> rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
> --
> We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
>  We ran to the sounds of thunder.
> We danced among the lightning bolts,
>  and tore the world asunder
>



-- 

Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
 We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
 and tore the world asunder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150302/93f08474/attachment.html>