From saltwater at madasafish.com Mon Apr 15 19:29:05 2002 From: saltwater at madasafish.com (Samual Walters) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:23:49 2003 Subject: Idea for paying for high speed links Message-ID: <001201c1e4a3$0afc65c0$0400a8c0@max> Hi I have an idea which may pay for links to the internet backbone. Here it is If we built machines with the equipment for connecting to the network, and then leased them for a small monthly fee. would leasing hardware to interested parties be breaking the law? I don't see how this would as where still not charging for access just the machines, like renting a TV from the high street! Reactions please! Walnut From malcolm at kyzo.com Tue Apr 16 01:43:54 2002 From: malcolm at kyzo.com (Malcolm Cartledge) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:23:49 2003 Subject: [consume-legal] Idea for paying for high speed links References: <001201c1e4a3$0afc65c0$0400a8c0@max> Message-ID: <3CBB65BA.84D4C2B8@kyzo.com> Although this has been covered time after time there is still a misconception that by not charging for a wireless connection, it isn't a business. This isn't true. The 'by way of business' restriction means that you can't provide any form of service under license exemption which is IN ANY WAY part of a business (SI-2000 Nr 1012). That includes making money, not making money or making a loss- no matter, they are all business models, some good some bad. Renting TV's is in no way related as TV transmissions ARE licensed - and you are required to pay a license fee to receive them. However, the recommendation from last/this years spectrum review is to remove this restriction as soon as possible (recommendation 8.2) Malcolm C -- Samual Walters wrote: > > Hi > I have an idea which may pay for links to the internet backbone. > > Here it is > > If we built machines with the equipment for connecting to the network, and > then leased them for a small monthly fee. > > would leasing hardware to interested parties be breaking the law? I don't > see how this would as where still not charging for access just the machines, > like renting a TV from the high street! > > Reactions please! > > Walnut > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: consume-legal-unsubscribe@lists.consume.net > For additional commands, e-mail: consume-legal-help@lists.consume.net From paul at 01983.net Wed Apr 24 00:55:26 2002 From: paul at 01983.net (01983Net) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:23:49 2003 Subject: RA rule change Message-ID: <005a01c1eb19$f647e0a0$9d2c3c3e@isletec> What's the consume position on the proposed chage in 2.4 for Not by way of business? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.consume.net/pipermail/consume-legal/attachments/20020423/6f0aa8eb/attachment.htm From paul at 01983.net Wed Apr 24 04:01:15 2002 From: paul at 01983.net (01983Net) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:23:49 2003 Subject: [consume-thenet] Radio Communications Agency meeting Message-ID: <010c01c1eb34$0da61720$9d2c3c3e@isletec> From julian at mediumrare.net Wed Apr 24 22:24:23 2002 From: julian at mediumrare.net (julian) Date: Sun Jan 19 18:23:49 2003 Subject: [consume-routing] Demo Kit In-Reply-To: <20020424161827.GC22931@ns.gbnet.net> Message-ID: > Steve Kennedy wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:12:42PM +0100, Malcolm Cartledge wrote: > > > > ... not that you'd be able to construct a business > unless you're a PTO > > > even without the by way of business clause due to the financial > > > restrictions in the self provision license. > > > http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/docs/spl_apr2001.pdf > > > :Schedule 3:Section 3(e) > > > which skews the competitive advantage firmly in the opposite > > > direction. > > So does this mean that currently only a Telco can offer service > over wireless ? Well *currently* they can't either beacause of WT act bwob. In a post bwob world i think that would be the case. julian