Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:27:13 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: A WISP doesn't own (or lease) everywhere. A company owns or leases their corporate space. If a Russian or Chinese spy snuck a MiFi into Lockheed Skunkworks and somehow passed their other forms of security, you'd be okay with them chugging away uploading whatever they found? If I tried to climb over the fence into a secure Lockheed facility I run the very real risk of being shot! humor Surely your not asserting that you have the same right when someone climbs over your back fence /humor. When National Security is asserted the rules change. The FCC has a history of being fairly draconian when they smell harmful interference. (I've always guessed it's personal to them because your playing with their toys. ;-) It's always a bad idea to expect to reason with a bureaucrat. It's either OK or not. It's all in the book. If you have a very deep back pocket you can try and get it in front of a judge and argue the merits but they tend to defer to the regulators. Larry Ash - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:09:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection While I understand your reasoning, I would disagree. If you could do this, for the security of a WISP, we will shut down all Access Points via Deauth attack that my Access Points can see. Also note, I am not talking for the FCC, but for what I believe is right, in this case, you can’t own a location or area of the wifi bands, therefore, you can’t cause harmful interference, and a deauth attack would be harmful, and interference. I can agree that you can detect it and shut it off on a port on your network, but you should not be able to interfere with other operations, regardless if it is your property or not. Maybe that’s not the intent from those actions, but it’s clear that if it’s not on your network then you can’t do much about it. Now, if they are on your property, sure you can tell them to turn it off or leave, but that’s another issue. lol Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection There is no mention of a blanket refusal. In the FCC citation, the fact that they're charging for Internet access is brought up every time the deauthing activity is. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329743A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1444A1.pdf In reading that second one, they also keep bringing up that Marriott charged for Internet (and a lot at that). Specifically, such employees had used this capability to prevent users from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks when these users did not pose a threat to the security of the Gaylord Opryland network or its guests. Sounds like security is a viable defense. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 11:43:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection You cannot do it at all…. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection You can do it all day long within your own company. Marriott was doing it to force people to give them money. A company doing it has plenty of other reasons. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:05:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection Note that many of these systems (rather rogue AP prevention) have been deemed illegal by the FCC, a hotel chain was fined 600k I think due to it. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Scott Piehn Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 9:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Rogue Accesspoint Detection I have a customer that is being required to get
Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question....
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:19:44 -0500 Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Set your device for 220-240VAC Many devices have a switch on the power supply for this. Some devices simply have an input range of 100-250VAC. Tie your device hot to leg 1 Tie your device neutral to leg 2 Tie your device ground to the neutral/ground of the power outlet. Can you post a picture of the outlet and of the power cord recptical on your device? While this should work in theory you cannot assume that neutral and ground are the same. The farther you get from the service the greater the possibility that neutral varies from ground, and if you have a corroded junction somewhere between your location and the bonding point you can have significant voltage on neutral. Just try and make digital equipment work if your feed 5-10 volts AC in on the ground. To do this properly requires an isolation transformer to separately derive the source and a new bonding point or better yet a four wire source pigtail where neutral and ground are separately presented on the plug. (Be careful about over current protection.) I've had to do this in a remote locations with 240 V generator. I used a one-to-one isolation transformer with a center tap. The primary is connected to the two hot legs. The secondary center tap is bonded to earth ground and both neutral and ground originate at that point. 110 is present on either end of the secondary relative to the center tap. The whole thing has to go to a fuse/breaker box for protection. All in all if there is service anywhere close it's easier and cheaper to hire an electrician to drop a 110 receptacle close by. Fires and/or electrocuted kids/pets are a PR problem of the first order. Larry Ash Mountain West Technologies Corp. -- On 11/6/2014 2:40 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Ok... sorry to beat this horse but I'm apparently not following you. There are three lugs my shiny new male plug has. 1-120v leg1 from single phase source 2-120v leg2 from single phase source 3- Neutral wire which bonds to ground at building main panel from power company. Cloud Core has three wires feeding the power supply. 1-120v leg (1 or 2) from single phase source 2-Neutral 3-Ground A) I completely understand how I can take a single 120v wire from leg1 or leg2 of the power source and then take the neutral to both neutral and ground of the router power supply and make this work - thats easy - but not code. B) I also understand how I could take a neutral, a ground and one hot wire with voltage anywhere from 110-250v and it will work with cloud core power supply. (but not I do not have this configuration at source) C) I do not understand how you can take two hots and a neutral and turn that into anything (just by using a cable) that the router can use unless that cable is doing nothing more than what I described above in A Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 *From*: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net *Sent*: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:53 AM *To*: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question Here is the info on AC power arrangement http://www.oempanels.com/what-does-single-and-three-phase-power-mean The CCR specs show it having : Dualpowersuppliesforredundancy,110-250Vinput,IECconnectors which means that, you can use either 110 or 220 or 240 on the same power supply. All you would have to do is match the power cables... Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net *From: *Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:55:36 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question Cloud core. There is a difference between having a hot (80-250v), a neutral and a ground, vs. a neutral and two 120v hots. I believe the router can handle more than 120v but not in the sense that its being delivered on two 120v legs with a neutral and no ground. Its a 3 prong twist lock type receptacle. If there is a way I'd like to be educated (aside from pulling one of the hots and hooking the neutral to ground as well on my new non-code engineered power cable. Educate me. I think I'm just going to plug it into the normal 120v 20amp plug on the wall behind the rack though, seems like the best way forward considering the options I was just trying to accommodate the customers request prior to plan B. Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102
Re: [WISPA] VoIP - Who is using successfully?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:56:33 -0400 Matt Brendle mattagator.mailingli...@gmail.com wrote: So a question for the masses. We are selling VoIP services and the number of Support Calls we get about poor performance is more than I would expect. Our basic setup is UBNT backhauls and APs, Mikrotik infrastructure routers, and CISCO/Linksys ATAs. Primarily Vitelity accounts. We get complaints of choppiness and other issues, and I wanted to see what others are using successfully. I am currently making a test procedure to try to find out where the issue is, but if anybody has success stories and example setups that would be great. We've been doing VOIP across dsl, dedicated and wireless circuits for years. It's a fairly simple engineering task that is very detail oriented. Jitter is the killer. I have and am using Cisco, Force 10, Mikrotik, UBNT, Radwin and MRV equipment. They all work but you have to look for any possible spot where there can be congestion and plan a way through. Mikrotik's are particularity difficult because they don't re-order packets. You make room by throwing something else away. Like everything Mikrotik it takes some middle to both edges thinking. Regularly sniff your voice traffic and be sure that the dscp/tos codes are there. Some switches/ providers will remove them. You can build an entire network with a pristine voice channel in it to find your voip running best effort. I have had that happen more than once. Also remember adding bandwidth on one link can create two or more new congestion points someplace else. details, details, details but once you get it right it's something to behold. I know that is a rather broad question, but I want to make this work and get our Support Calls down. Matt - NC Wireless Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT Email Receipt
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 07:46:52 -0700 D. Ryan Spott rsp...@irongoat.net wrote: Make your emails html based and place a graphic in them with a GUID Still doesn't work in every case. People like me intentionally read email with html parsing turn'ed off. I can pick the message from the html tags. If the message is in an image, the message is deleted unread. If I'm in a bad mood I leave the html (which is corrupted by reply in text mode) in the reply. Guess I spent too many years reading email on a VT. When I administered a network for a newspaper I ran most messages through MimeDefang which can remove the html before delivery. Prevented a lot of problems with self described power users. Larry When the end user opens the mail and wants to view the contents they will download the graphic from your server. People can still opt out of downloading the graphic but if it is a critical part of the mail then they really have no choice. ryan On 4/2/14 7:04 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: My owners asked this. Is there a way or a protocol that will allow you to be notified that an email recipient received or viewed your email, even if they refuse to acknowledge notification receipt? I don't think there is but they seem to think they read something a while back thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- D. Ryan Spott | Iron Goat Networks, llc broadband | telco | colo | community PO Box 1232 / 603 W. Stevens Sultan, WA 98284 360-799-0552 | gtalk: rsp...@irongoat.net ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] magnetic sector panel mount
Hi all, I am looking for a magnetic mount that can be used on a sector panel for use on a municipal metal water tank. The sector panels will be for ubiquity. Sector panel model not chosen yet. The catch 22 is that we experience high winds. We have sustained winds of 40-60 mph with occasional gusts in the 70-80 mph range on a few days each year. (like 30 or 40) Anybody know of something that is strong enough to work? Any info or experience is appreciated. Thanks. Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:09:31 -0400 Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: On 3/31/2014 10:03 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I have a customer that we installed an IP phone system for. They moved their office to a new building where the telco couldn't or wouldn't bring service to. --snip-- Which solution is best for the customer depends on how they use fax and how critical it is. I just uploaded my FCC Comments on the ATT experiment, one which proposes that fax capabilities be lost. I pointed out that fax is sometimes used for reasons that distinguish it from email: Security and privacy (no middle man server), knowledge of receipt (not just to a mailbox), and reliability (no servers, no attachments). I don't want to start a long thread about fax but --RANT Fax over copper was never either secure or private. The transmission always was fairly easy to intercept if you were snooping on a particular individual/business. Plus, you have no idea who walks up to the recipient fax machine which I maintain should disqualify it for both the legal and medical communities. Some of the old time phone phreaks used to have the CO automatically bridge lines to a cable pair that they had acquired during call setup. (Hopefully they were all chased out of the system some time ago) Fax is a loose standard and should have died out a decade ago. (IMHO) A peer-to-peer encrypted, standards based system would have been the likely result and this silliness about supporting analog fax would go away. /RANT That said both of the methods mentioned in this thread work about as well as traditional copper which is less than 100%. Even on copper expect a few customer calls. Internet fax is actually the worst of both worlds, putting fax in series with email. So it's useful if you get the occasional fax from someone who can't scan documents otherwise, but it's not useful if you use fax the way pharmacies, doctors, and courts do. Since VoIP doesn't support modems or fax, if they need real fax, they need a way to extend the signal (dial tone) to the new site. This can't just run over best efforts IP. But there are systems that do the timing and buffering to enable TDM to be reliably emulated across a wireless link (I suggest using a high-priority VLAN and no public IP). We're using the RAD IPmux series. We're putting them in to replace T1s, for instance, to support fire department voting receivers (very quality critical) across Ethernet radios. Not exactly cheap, but it's a nice tool. They are available with different types of interfaces. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] VoIP reselling.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:44:57 -0500 Roger Howard g5inter...@gmail.com wrote: So if I'm de minimis, do I have to register anything with the FCC? or just ignore it and let Vitelity pay until I get big? Get a telcom lawyer. This is a minefield and can blow up in your face if you do it wrong. There are several groups that do just this and they are not that expensive. If I remember correctly there are a couple on this list. We provide wholesale voip to a couple of WISP's. We own the customer, we handle the e911 and USF and we bill though the WISP in the customer's name and the agent doesn't have access to the CPNI data. It's all running through our switch and it's still a minefield. We have had to consult the lawyers multiple times to be sure to keep us and the WISP out of hot water. So, the salesman could be right or he might not know and doesn't care. Don't trust what he say's or anybody else for that matter. Get you own lawyer that knows both Federal and your State requirements. The fines for mistakes are designed to get the attention of multi-national companies. They could easily kill one of us. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: On 3/26/2014 12:53 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: Doesn't sound right to me, unless they are going to do all the billing and tax filing in your behalf. If they charge you USF on your wholesale rate, who pays on the difference between your wholesale rate and the customer's marked up rate? USF rules are pretty strict. If a USF-subject class of carrier has interstate telecommunications revenues (not Internet per se) that would subject it to USF payments of $10k/year, then it is de minimis and does not pay. BUT then its suppliers treat it as retail and they pay on the services supplied to the de minimis carrier. Once the carrier crosses out of de minimis, it suppliers must verify that it is paying USF, and then should not charge it USF on their wholesale sales. So it's paid once, only once, by the last non-de mimimis carrier en route to the retail customer. (Disclaimer: IANAL and that's just my understanding.) E911 is a state requirement. Interconnected VoIP services have to do it, but the state sets the price. On 3/26/2014 10:51 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've been using Vitelity for a while in the office here, with freeswitch, and it works great. I was considering reselling the vitelity service to my customers, the only thing that has held me back is the legal requirements. I thought I had to collect USF fees, register with the FCC, pay it to them. Maybe sales tax. etc. I was at wispamerica yesterday and talked to a fellow at the Vitelity booth. He told me that they collect the USF, so we don't have to, the e-911 is optional, all I have to do is sign up as a reseller to get better pricing and charge what I like to the customers. Is this correct? I've learned to never trust a salesman. Something doesn't sound right, surely it can't be that easy? Thanks, Roger ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Randy Cosby InfoWest, Inc435-674-0165 x 2010 --- This e-mail message contains information from InfoWest, Inc and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, review or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact rco...@infowest.com by reply email and destroy the original message, all attachments and copies. ___ Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:36:02 -0500 Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: We've been seeing a strange problem on a network we operate that has a lot of (mostly old) Motorola PTP400 radios on it. These use the Motorola PIDU POE injector. They're connected to HP Procurve and Cisco 3550 switches. The problem is that some radios literally kill the switch ports. Sometimes it begins with alignment and CRC errors on the switch ports. But then the port might fail, and the radio has to be plugged into another port... until it fails. It's an odd failure mode too; the 3550 thinks the port is OK, and sees it as going up and down as the PIDU is attached and detached, but it doesn't pass packets. The fix is to insert a small dumb switch to isolate the 3550 from the PTP, but that's kind of a nasty hack. Ciscos seem somewhat more susceptible than HPs, but we're migrating towards the venerable Ciscos because they are more manageable. We think we have the speed and duplex matching right. And while we can't be sure, the cabling in most cases looks okay. Hi Fred, I don't have that radio but I've had port problems from time to time. I noted that you said the switch showed the port as up but; On the Cisco Switch, if you do a 'show interface status' does the switch port show status of err-disabled? If it does you might look at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_note09186a00806cd87b.shtml Anybody else run into this? Thanks. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Voltage regulator
As already noted there are a number of sources for regulators. The meanwell mentioned by Forrest is probably the best choice for this case but I'd like to add http://www.zahninc.com/ to the list. Well built and fairly inexpensive in the step-up,step-downat lower wattages. I have used the DCDC48/24/280 - 280 watt 48 V to 24 V @ $99 DCDC24/48/260 - 260 watt 24 V to 48 V @ $99 andDCDC6350-S-ADJ 50 Amp Voltage Regulator monster to Regulate 48 - 60 Volts. ($407) They have a wide range of devices that they design and manufacture. Most have a degree of adjustability to tweak to your requirements. David Zahn's designs are conservative so they will do everything that they say. The downside is that you have to convince David Zahn that your not going to burn up his device before he will sell the first one to you. (know how much current you need and leave some room for startup surge current) As a small guy I try to support the other small guys like David Zahn when the device and price fits. Larry ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: I need a means to regulate the voltage coming out of the Solar Controller I need a constant 24 volts for Tranzeo and Ubiquiti radios. I now have between 25 and 29 volts. Any suggestions? NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Rocket Titanium
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:07:08 -0400 Clay Stewart cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com wrote: Has anyone used one of these to 'upgrade' a site to 24VDC while keeping it 24VDC? http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=70069882#tab=specs Not that exact device but I have used http://www.zahninc.com/su1A.html to step up from 24 to 48V. You have to understand how much current you need. I have changed from 24V supplies to 48V supplies a couple of years ago since the 24V load was a lot less than the 48V one. (Now if the world would standardize on +48 or -48.) DC-DC converters work very well if you keep them inside there power envelope. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Jon Auer j...@tapodi.net wrote: That has been true, but it seems like the cell world has been moving to 48V lately. Examples: Alvarion carrier WiMax (2.5Ghz), macro and micro uses 48V (maybe you can get it in 24V, the stuff I've seen has all been 48V) With packet optical, if you put a Cyan box in that uses 24V you need separate linecard spares as they aren't compatible with the 48V stuff in core. More microwave backhauls are at 48V. Newer all-outdoor ones are using POE+ / 802.3at which is 48V. Cisco ASR901S pole-mount routers output POE+ so you have one outdoor box to take your fiber and go to microwave to other sites. Most Ethernet switches are AC or -48DC. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: On 4/6/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: They should have always been 48v. I think the only reason they weren't always 48v was because the RB5xx boards had problems producing noise at 48v. The commercial wireless world (cell sites) is all 24 volt. The wireline world is 48 volt. So I can see why they would use 24 volts, but 48 is usually only for central office buildings, where there is no radio gear except, perhaps, some old-fashioned fixed microwave. A handful of competitive players are doing microwave collocation in COs, but given the cost, a power converter would be the least of their worries. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Robert nos...@avantwireless.com To: paolo difrancesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:18:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Rocket Titanium Exactly... UBNT looks more and more like a company trying less and less to stay out in front of the competition but locking in their customers... Very apple-ish... h Robert was at apple... On 04/06/2013 09:11 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: Hi Josh I did not notice the voltage change, but it looks like more a business strategy (their switch does 24V and 48V) to lockout other vendors than a real technical need Should I reimplement again a new battery system at 48V for the site? Hum Thank you Ya...better. Different voltage though. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Apr 6, 2013 11:04 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it mailto:paolo.difrance...@level7.it wrote: Hi all I was wondering if the Rockets-Titanium are stable, or if somebody is using them with success. Not sure if they perform better than the plastic ubiquiti Still missing the multiple SSID and IPv6 support, who knows if Ubiquiti will implement that sooner or later... Let me know your feedback and if the extra cost worths the improvements :) Thank you -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 tel:%2B39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 tel:%28%2B39%29%20091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 -- Fred R. Goldstein fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- -- SCS Clay Stewart CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., DBA Stewart Computer Services 434.263.6363
