Comments on: A WiFi Odyssey

By: cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Just when are wardriving and piggybacking illegal?

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:38:53 +0000

[...] that doesn’t make it a crime. Only a statute can do that, and the Irish statutory position is unclear and obscure. The UK’s statues would seem to be clearer. For example, section 125(1) of the [...]

By: cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Is it ok to share wi-fi?

cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Is it ok to share wi-fi? — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 06:14:02 +0000

[...] or civil liability if a user’s wifi is shared by a third party; and Daithí has taken the discussion several steps further. Now, Kris adds an additional consideration, directing the analysis to the [...]

By: Lex Ferenda » Releech me

Lex Ferenda » Releech me — Wed, 23 May 2007 22:08:28 +0000

[...] to using an open wifi connection (or ‘unauthorised access’ as some like to call it). I wrote about this in some detail a while back, and this case (albeit with different legislation) is a useful reminder that these [...]

By: cearta.ie » Blog Archive » No such thing as a free lunch, even at BarCamp

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:08:59 +0000

[...] as Daithí Mac Síthigh points out on his WiFi Odyssey (a tremendous post, well worth reading), the patchwork of subequent amendments has made such a mess [...]

By: Tom Young

Tom Young — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:36:20 +0000

Lex, see Copland v. UK. EHCR http://www.thegovernmentsays.com/cache/90069.html

You might want to move this comment elsewhere.

Ciao.

By: Ross

Ross — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:49:14 +0000

As an interesting aside about Wi-fi in Ireland… I recently bought Apple’s new Airport Extreme Base Station (www.apple.ie) which comes with two differing claims for speed of either 5x faster on the US site and 2.5x faster on the Apple UK site. This is due to the legislation in place in the UK that doesn’t allow for what is termed ‘wide-channels’ which is basically two adjacent frequencies working in parallel and hence boosting their throughput.
The bit that’s relevant to here is that due to the Irish State not covering this issue like the Brits we get to experience a faster wifi lifestyle. Additionally it’s been noted repeatedly that when UK owners of the device are setting up their wifi points they now select their home country as Ireland to overcome the software (legally induced) limitation.
Hope this is of some use…

By: Tom Young

Tom Young — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:40:27 +0000

Yes, or just reduce to state regulates Access to Communications (omits work Internet, Video, Telephony, Frame, ATM etc.).

There are aspects of the NN debate which are useful, but in general there are problems with other aspects. I think its less useful to dive directly into supporting the ‘academic sandal wearing’ NN debate before we place our environs into context (and that’s not a capitalist or personally aimed remark).

There is nothing worse than politico’s engaging in debates because they are sexy or hot topics. The US is in important investor in the EU, so as such playing to the crowd is something that we have heard from Mme. Reding on this matter. The ‘06 FW review will be of interest.

By: Daithí

Daithí — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:21:43 +0000

Oh and although as you indicate the legal issues and reading any of the Framework documents will put grey hairs on you, would it be fair, as a non-legal summary to say that EU telecoms law regulates certain industries that provide access to ‘the Internet’ rather than ‘the Internet’ itself?

By: Daithí

Daithí — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:19:34 +0000

Aye, I read (and really enjoyed) those Ofcom notes before. Tell Tom they’re very helpful. In fact I mentioned it in a talk at Birmingham last week. The other little bit of curiosity on the EU and NN is that the Content Online consultation (from DG Info Soc) asked whether the EU should do anything in relation to NN debates:

The Internet is currently based on the principle of “network neutrality”, with all data moving around the system treated equally. One of the ideas being floated is that network operators should be allowed to offer preferential, high-quality services to some service providers instead of providing a neutral service. What is your position on this issue? (http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/other_actions/content_online/index_en.htm#consultation)

Make of that what you will

By: Tom Young

Tom Young — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:04:29 +0000

Well I’d debate that at length. The issue is that the 2003 Framework espouses Technology Neutrality and the Transfer of Technology Neutrality (THIS IS NOT NET NEUTRALITY) so seeks to regulate access only (See relevant markets recommentation outlining 18 relevant markets). I can firmly comment that the Internet is unregulated save for applications which might touch it e.g., telephone numbers, ENUM, VoIP and certain access etc.

PATS is a controversial aspect of this, as outlined in the USO Directive, Art. 2 (c).

Reading the entire NRF (If one can stay awake long enough) will not actually give a clear picture on this.

So re. your quote ‘carrying’ is the operative word with relevance to the Internet and and indeed the mechanism of communication in question.

The 2006 Framework review may contain more avenues into the Net Neutrality debate(s) but seeing as we are not as subject to the US regime for Competition and indeed HDTV and content service (Regulation) we may in fact have a less caring approach over here in YOU-rope.

Mate Tom is involved in this: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/speeches/2007/02/net_neutrality