[serval-project-dev] Re: Serval Legal Issues

[harry k]

Hi Paul,

This is the concise version :)

> how we ensure that the serval technology does not get tied up under
> telecommunications regulation.

This is a moot point unless Serval a) is in the radio hardware
business, b) causes the radio device to exceed its power output or c)
convinces the output stage to not skip across at least XX frequencies.

915b928  ;  1 W - A minimum of 20 hopping frequencies must be used.
2400b2483.5  ;  500 mW - A minimum of 15 hopping frequencies must be
used.
2400b2483.5  ;  4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be
used.
5725b5850  ;  4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be used.

see:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00659
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1768

The real smarts of Serval is in the software and its application that
relies on a 3rd party OS, sitting inside some vendor's hardware that
uses wireless comms. The bands have been defined, the license issued
(Class licences do not have to be applied for, and no licence fees are
payable. They are issued by the ACMA by a notice published in the
Commonwealth of Australia Gazette) under the Radiocommunications (Low
Interference Potential Devices) Class Licence - supporting the use of
short-range spread spectrum and digital modulation devices.

Working with these frequencies the following is the ACMA caveat for
anyone's radio dovalacky in these bands...
"must not cause interference to other radiocommunications services and
will not be afforded protection from interference caused by other
radiocommunications services" which means low power communication
devices must accept interference from licensed users of that frequency
band, including that from the cat dryers.

The converse is that Serval must not impinge on the licensed users
(ie, carriers) as their interests are vested and most have paid a gob
load to guarantee spectrum to themselves as a for-profit operation.
That is what makes a 'telecommunications carrier', a protected
monopolist in most countries.

> In particular, the question of when something becomes a
> telecommunications carrier, and thus needs (serious) licensing and is
> subjected to a more onerous regulatory regime.

Even if one was to install 4 W boosters and relays in the metro areas,
it would be a good argument for ACMA and the lawyers whilst there was
no charge to play. That is, if there is money involved, then ACMA and
others want a slice. I smell a blank audio cassette / blank CD royalty
here.

> My understanding of the Telecommunications Act here in Australia is
> that:
> 1.  links of <500m are automatically excluded, provided they don't
> include wires over/through public property (so under your fence to a
> neighbour is clearly exempt, but across the road, even if between
> properties you do own, isn't exempt).

Where did 'distance' come into it? Only reference i can find in the
standards is about output power and frequency hopping. Although...
"A wireless local area network (WLAN) is the generic term used for
equipment that can form data networks with other equipment over short
distances (usually less than 500 metres) without the use of connecting
wires. " might explain things a bit. It is misleading, naughty ACMA.

The 'wires' thingy is a left over from the copper days, i remember
them... but the air is free (except for the carbon dioxide tax and
spectrum auctions).

Monopoly protection of the dominant copper pair carrier was the
regulatory intent of this 'copper over public places' mainly for
telephony originally and then the never-show-a-profit pay and cable tv
guys, Murdoch 25% Packer 25% Telstra 50% (give thanks and praise to
Kim W for that)

> 2. WiFi (or is the ISM2400 band) is more or less exempt in any form or
> distance within the allowable power limits (but this needs
> clarification).

If the hardware complies with the output power and frequency hopping
requirements, then go for your life with 'smart' software over the top
of it.

> This applies to _single elements_ of the network.
> What happens if a group of people using our technology over WiFi form
> a larger network that does "connect distinct places in Australia"?

As long as each node in the mesh operates within its limits, where is
the problem?

The other anachronism that will confound some a bit, is the 'connect
distinct places' as stated by ACMA...
" Category 1 - single line links connecting distinct places in
Australia
(12) A single line link connecting distinct places within Australia
that are at least 500 metres apart. A power exists for the Minister to
extend these distances if this is considered appropriate at a future
date. "

a) intended for permanent point-to-point comms such as microwave links
and the like between populated places where there are people /
businesses who can pay to play.
b) the link operates in an 'always on' mode providing a permanent
link. This concept goes out the window with spread spectrum
technology.

> What happens if all the phones in that network are owned by different
> people or if they are owned by just one person?

Once upon a time... _all_ handsets were owned by the PMG / Telecom and
you paid a rental for them. Yes, even today this Telstra mug tax still
exists if you allow it. The deal is, you rent the line and handset,
but the ACCC put a stop to that and you can connect any approved
handset to the PTSN system.

> In the former case it would seem very tenuous to suggest that any one
> person is running a telecommunications network, even if the behaviour
> of a telecommunications network can be argued to emerge from the many
> parts.

Is the network permanently on?
Does any one individual or group own the whole of the parts?

> In the latter case, perhaps it is a little more grey, as it could be
> argued that that person owns a telecommunications network.  This is
> when the issue of the distance of individual links and the exemption
> of WiFi/ISM2400 (if it really is exempt).

Again, the license relates to output power and frequency hopping _not_
distance.

> What responsibility is their for providing 000 access?

As Serval and the mesh is not a telecommunications carrier, there is
no obligation. It is an adhoc network.
Although it would be a neat feature if one node, which is outside of a
PSTN connection, could establish one from the WiFi mesh, where it
would over ride the repeater like a party-line switchboard* and route
the 000 call out to the PSTN. Would need a way of notifying the over
ridden node owner / user that a 000 call is in progress. Similar
issues exist with the ham radio community and makes for good reading
as to the problems Serval will face... soon.

* - http://mallala.nowandthen.net.au/index.php?title=Mallala_Telephone_Exchange

> How does a "best-effort" fall-back capability fit into the carrier-
> grade centric intent of the Telecommunications Act?

Why worry, the whole Serval / mesh thingy is outside of the onerous
nature of money making from permanent radio comms and / or
broadcasting.

> These are the main things that are floating through my head,

Hope this has helped.

Two areas of background would be the ham radio repeater community and
how early telephone networks worked, ie party lines.


Best regards,

Harry K.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en.

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE