RE: [WISPA] NXTComm
Yep, go to this one every year! John Buwa Michiana Wireless -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] NXTComm Anyone going to the show in Chicago next week? Jeff Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Not even close. The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars ($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close off line sharing requirements. Total revenue for other providers of local service nationwide (not just Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year. Peter, you may have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual Telecommunications revenue report. Considering this includes a lot of stuff that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify Verizon and ATT's move to fiber. I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance. But, the reality is that it is simply an annoyance. Most of the players who really count in terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s. 5Mb/s was great technology in 1998. We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher theoretical capacity). The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects. The cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days (well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going after the business market. The telcos are on an old copper network which simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is 25Mb/s down, 5 up +-). The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle much data. The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit broadcast rather than point to point) for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business side. Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that way. Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the technical basis to compete. Plain and simple. The market is evolving. Sure, telcos don't like line sharing. However, CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the least of the ILECs worries these days. They are rolling out fiber because the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on that level. Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :). My comments above are mainly centered around the urban markets. You could reasonably make the argument that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from ATT side, but not too far off). Rural markets will remain on copper for a _long_ time. If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in. Verizon is rolling out FTTH across its market, sure. Don't forget that Verizon also spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in rural areas). Many of these areas are still running copper between central offices, if that is any indication. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter why the market is moving away from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural). Still, I think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you think that the ILECs are doing a multi-billion dollar fiber rollout simply to get rid of them... even if copper stayed around, the CLECs relying on it would obselete themselves about as quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/15/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: correct George Rogato wrote: Isn't the reason they are replacing some of their copper with fiber is because they then do not have to allow competition to ride their wires? Old wires old rules, new fiber new rules? George Peter R. wrote: The ATT (originally SBC) VDSL plan requires copper to the home. Fiber to the neighborhood. In VZ region, they are pulling out copper as fast as they can replacing it with fiber. (FiOS is FTTH not FTTN). VZ even clips the copper when they install your FiOS. And what VZ isn't replacing, thieves are stealing, since copper is easy to sell. VZ's union is even claiming that VZ is not maintaining the copper plant in some areas. If you watch the FCC network notifications, there is more copper replacement being done this year then ever before. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA Members] Re: [WISPA] 2007 Board of Directors ElectionResults
Oh yeah, last I knew he's not even in the industry anymore! I just had the pleassure of doing lunch with Mike Young a few weeks ago. Great guy! He's currently working with Proxim on a consulting basis. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Re: [WISPA] 2007 Board of Directors ElectionResults Marlon, This is a great summary of WISPA's beginning. It should be put on the WISPA website some where, though I would leave out the negative parts about specific persons. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Blush Thanks John! I'm still glad you were willing to belly up to the bar and put forth the work to start a WISP trade association v4.0. From time to time, people ask what's so special about WISPA, I'd like to voice some of that now. That way you guys can pass it along to more of those that haven't joined yet WISPA is actually my 4th attempt at a trade association for our industry. It started with Rick Haskins (not Harnish) back in 2001 or so. Rick worked his tail off, got the support of Tim Downs with Broadband Wireless World Forum. He didn't, however, get enough support from operators like me. I think, looking back, that the timing was just wrong. Too few of us had any idea what to do, when to do it, or how to pay for it. Too few of us had any disposable income at all back then. We also had no time at all. It was, believe it or not, worse then than it is today. Now we CAN move out time commitments around a bit if need be. Next up was the WCA and it's License Exempt Alliance (LEA). The WCA is a commercial trade org and follows the money. I'll never forget when the WCA filed on the mix and match components NPRM and said that amps should NOT be allowed to be mixed and matched. In the end the FCC actually stiffened the rules about amps in our networks. Mike Young from YDI seemed to be the only one on the conference call that I was on that was in favor of the amp rule as proposed, and he got his way. I'm guessing that he paid more money to the association and did more of the FCC filing work etc. Oh yeah, last I knew he's not even in the industry anymore! In third place we have Part-15.org. I helped as much as I could with that one too. I even joined at one point. P15 was started by, operated by, and owned by Mike Anderson. I didn't have a problem with that in it's self, but I thought we needed an association that was owned by us, not one person. This point was driven home in one FCC filing, I don't remember which one, but I do remember that the p15 stance was clearly bad for WISPs. I found out later that Mike Young had written that filing too. Again, it went against what most of us in the business had said over and over that we wanted. Yet our voice was like peeing on a forest fire. Made us feel better but didn't do a damned bit of good in the end. Then, as I stood in an airport, waiting for my flight I got a phone call. It was an ugly brute of a man I'd met a time or two and almost liked (roflol). OK, I'd grown to both respect and, more importantly to me, like John Scrivner. We must have talked for at least an hour. I wish I could remember what airport I was in. I can still remember that I was at the very end of the jetway, far out in the sticks terminal wise. I remember John saying that he thought we did indeed need a trade association and he'd be willing to try to get one rolling. I told him that I didn't have time to run anything but if he'd step up to the plate and give it a go I'd do what I could to help him. By the end of the call it was all settled, we'd round up some others and see what we could get accomplished. Some days I'm sure John regrets that conversation. I was the one that really pushed for Brett Glass to be a part of the founding committee. I reasoned that it would insulate us from much criticism about being a good ol' boys club etc. (We were, after all, still reeling from finding out that the non-profit p15 was in fact a for profit corp all along.) Well, that turned out to be rotten advice. A pot stirrer will stir the pot no matter what you do. Lesson learned. I'd spent quite a bit of time at the FCC by this time. I'd gotten to know much of the leadership there and some of the policy folks. I'd been told, many a time, that ISP associations had very little credibility at the FCC/government level, even though the FCC preferred to deal with trade associations. They liked the associations because much of the squabbling gets dealt with long before people show up at the Commission. That makes their job much easier. They don't like ISP associations because about the time the associations get big enough to have an impact, one of the big operators will come in and take over making
RE: [WISPA] Copper Plant
I think what we're going to need to see in the wireless industry, very soon, is affordable medium range (1.5 miles or less) gigabit speed backhauls. I feel that in an urban environment (city, etc) that we could build SONET-style wireless gigabit rings around these areas. FSO / 60ghz type equipment, very little interference, etc. But the problem with this is - to put a pair of these units up at the average multi-story building is not effective cost-wise. Each pair costs $20k+, and I know manufacturers are holding back on lowering the price because they know how much actual fiber costs to bury 1 mile and the time it actually takes. I have enough high-rise customers I could build a backhaul ring network in my area, and offer unbelievable speeds. From those buildings, wireless pico-cells could offer Wi-Max speeds to 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile. Or secondary slower FSO links could be used for nearby customers. Unlicensed 2.4/5.8 backhauls could also be used from these points. But the cost would be astronomical right now. 10 or 20 of these units could easily cost more than a Ferrari. And would it have an ROI measured in 10+ years... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant Not even close. The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars ($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close off line sharing requirements. Total revenue for other providers of local service nationwide (not just Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year. Peter, you may have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual Telecommunications revenue report. Considering this includes a lot of stuff that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify Verizon and ATT's move to fiber. I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance. But, the reality is that it is simply an annoyance. Most of the players who really count in terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s. 5Mb/s was great technology in 1998. We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher theoretical capacity). The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects. The cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days (well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going after the business market. The telcos are on an old copper network which simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is 25Mb/s down, 5 up +-). The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle much data. The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit broadcast rather than point to point) for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business side. Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that way. Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the technical basis to compete. Plain and simple. The market is evolving. Sure, telcos don't like line sharing. However, CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the least of the ILECs worries these days. They are rolling out fiber because the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on that level. Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :). My comments above are mainly centered around the urban markets. You could reasonably make the argument that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from ATT side, but not too far off). Rural markets will remain on copper for a _long_ time. If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in. Verizon is rolling out FTTH across its market, sure. Don't forget that Verizon also spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in rural areas). Many of these areas are still running copper between central offices, if that is any indication. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter why the market is moving away from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural). Still, I think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you think that the ILECs are doing a
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Ralph, I read the bill and I believe you are correct. Paragraph (3)(B)(i) appears to state that the bill does NOT apply to the provider of a telecommunications or Internet access service. As of 5/16/07, I don't see anything in this bill or any Congressional Action on this bill that requires ISPs to block specific websites. That doesn't mean it couldn't be amended later to include ISP requirements but the authors do not appear to be targeting ISPs as part of their enforcement attempts. For those who want to read the bill, it's here. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.980: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Ralph wrote: Read the act itself. I don't *think* it applies to us. Look at C `(3) This subsection does not apply to-- `(A) the delivery, distribution, or dispensation of controlled substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their registration under this title; `(B) the placement on the Internet of material that merely advocates the use of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting to propose or facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance; or `(C) any activity that is limited to-- `(i) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or `(ii) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regu lations or http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be next. It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well. Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] NXTComm
If you, or anyone else needs a free floor pass, feel free to use our code, VIP7, to get one. Stop by and see me if you get a chance, we are at booth 4879. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Bunyea Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NXTComm Plan on going Wednesday. On 6/14/07, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone going to the show in Chicago next week? Jeff Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
And let us both hope that does not come at the cost of a few thousand civilian lives. ... because it most certainly could come at that cost ... -m- Jack Unger wrote: Michael, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I think I understand your concern. Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. government and he too is assigned to serve in a country that experiences daily street warfare. I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can one day soon return home safely and lead normal lives. jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: Michael, OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here. Who was paranoid and/or what was the slip? jack Michael Erskine wrote: Jack Unger wrote: For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to block websites based on either suspicion or on the orders of governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public security or safety. jack Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking? That is good. Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional slip happens. Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA. -m- Jack I quoted the pertinents. There is no reason to suggest that governmental agencies with political motivations would try to deny free speech in the name of protecting security or safety. My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked the other day. He goes back next week. I said, Son, are we winning the war? He said, That depends upon your definition of winning? He explained that he and his brothers are bait. Yep, his words exactly. They are bait because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply come to the US and kill people. They take the easy target, Americans in Iraq. Most folks don't get that. I got it from day one... six years ago. You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever. Then he said, but if you define winning as a self sustaining, independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years. What does that mean to you and me? It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes a democracy. It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are paying $2.50 per gallon. Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
