Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll - Last post on this subject

[Tom DeReggi]

II4A hired 2 lobbyists to write 7 template letters each, so that the 14
templates would sound and look different.
Just download, sign and fax to your Congress Critter. How many people 
downloaded them? Less than 15.


How many people were aware of them?
I'd argue that could also be a communication problem (method of letting 
people know its an available resource.)


At ISP-CEO, you could not concisely explain what the lawsuit purpose or 
goal was. (Maybe you announced too early).

Then when pushed you said: Physical Separation.


As much as I like Structural Seperation idea, its like going back in history 
to day 1, and starting over, forgetting all legislation and negotiation 
thathas happened to date. Not likely going to be a possibilty ever again. 
The reason is major changes kill momentum, and the country is clearly with a 
gaol to gain broadband to every where quickly to keep up with the other 
countries.  They aren't going to favor major disruptive solutions.



Part of me worries that the lawsuit will render all ISPs obsolete.


Why?

A little Anti-Trust history. The US vs. GE anti-trust case was dismissed 
after 9 years. "Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's 
antitrust division, said the case had been dismissed because the passage 
of time had reduced the significance of the case and any court order the 
Government might win."


Microsoft had over 130 private anti-trust suits filed against it. Did 
anyone win one?

The US vs. MS lasted 5 years.
Covad filed against VZ, but that was just a bargaining move.
Covad is still suing BST, filed in 2002.
NorthPoint tried to sue VZ for $4B in anti-trust, but settled for a 5% 
ownership.

Sun has been suing Microsoft.
SCO is suing IBM.
Do you see the pattern here? Lots of big cases that take lots of time, 
energy, effort and money. And the only winners are the lawyers.




Allthough you are making a good point, you leave out one very significant 
case.
The Monopoly battles that led to the seperation of the Bells in the first 
place.
A victory of epic proportion was made once, and therefore it is possible to 
make it once again.



I say expend the energy building a business based on Layer 1 or Layer 7.


Building a business model on Layer7 is risky until Net Neutrality is 
defined.
Building a business model on Layer 1 is risky when Someone else already owns 
masses infrastructure with the advantages of economy of scale, time to 
market, and no cost pre-existing (The Bells).
I argue you have to hit them from all sides. And encumber the competition in 
every way possible, and not let go of any thing that you have or want to 
have, while building layer 1 and 7 solutions.


Ultimately, I believe the arguement is that... American legislation, policy 
makers, and law inforcement (courts) are constantly ruling in favor of 
destroying American businesses and enterprise.  The destruction and 
hinderence of the majority of American Internet related businesses is the 
cause of low penetration rate within the country.  We need to support any 
effort that sends home the message that support must be given for 
independant small businesses. And the beauty of the Internet was a cooperate 
effort of network operators that inter-connect.  The path now, os that the 
Internet will eventually be controlled by a handfull of goliath companies 
instead. This is not only a threat to the vision of the Internet but to 
national security as well.  What we can not forget is... Once we send the 
message that we accept that the Monopolies are untouchable and make the 
rules, it will become a never ending never winning battle lossing to them 
until we are extinct. When you give, people take. When you bow, people push 
you down.  The bells should never be left off the hook for their wrong 
doings. Why because, whats keeping them from relicating their practices to 
kill Layer1 and layer7 competitors as well.  Isn't the real goal, to take 
over the Internet?  Do you think they will stop at being happy that they do 
not have to share their copper?


I applaud the efforts of those like Frank, regardless of wether a possible 
victory is realistic or likely. There is a lot of new legislation being 
debated this upcomming years, and the message needs to be sent that we are 
NOT giving up, and we will NOT go away. And that is the best way to help 
ensure that we will be considered amicably in upcomming legislation.  Quite 
honestly I think the the ISP community needs as many bargining chips as 
possible for the future.


I no longer hate the telcos and cable companies. I've grown (matured) past 
that. I actually respect them for their persistance and strategy that 
appears to be working for them from some perspectives.  After all they 
managed to delay American broadband expansion to a low 17th place, to keep 
the cash cow telecom revenue comming in as long as possible.  Instead, I've 
directly my emotion to support for the Small business and independant 
provider, that need pr

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll - Last post on this subject

[Frank Muto]

I am sure WISPA has a membership fee. As for the announcement, it was just
that, an announcement. Surely even you can understand that any other
information would not be a strategic move. I actually wanted to announce
earlier but felt the ISP-CEO Exchange was better time slot.

I'll stick with my statement on what others have done in the past. As for
Brand-X, a lot of people learned from that, but it was not about what we
(had) a right to and that was access to the last mile from the copper.

As for Bruce, yes there are something's that were not of interest for the
ISP. As a former Dialup provider, I was not interested in local or LD
services, but access to expand our service to Broadband. And yes Bruce has a
wealth of information that may prove beneficial and perhaps he can
potentially benefit. But as Bruce has told me, he has pitched it to many law
firms with no takers. The WBIA on the other hand has counsel.

Thanks for the history overview, but I am sure that counsel is aware of
other
litigation and I'm sure fully aware of how many wrong decisions have
effected the competitive service providers.

That said, there is a lot of work ahead and for those I have spoken with are
not willing to give up and just lay down.



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us







- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




Frank,

In the same day as your post on WISPA, you are asking if anyone is filing
comments to the BST-AT&T merger on other lists.  Surely, your supporters
will at least take 5 minutes to write a comment. No? Why not?
Because it is easier to say I support something verbally than to actually
do something.

It is free to join WISPA, yet only 71 have listed their names / signed up.

II4A hired 2 lobbyists to write 7 template letters each, so that the 14
templates would sound and look different.
Just download, sign and fax to your Congress Critter. How many people
downloaded them? Less than 15.

At ISP-CEO, you could not concisely explain what the lawsuit purpose or
goal was. (Maybe you announced too early).
Then when pushed you said: Physical Separation.

As PA has been the only state to ever consider such a notion, perhaps
viewing the outcome in that state would be appropriate. (Remember that PA
let VZ have final approval of all muni BB projects, by law).

Bruce Kushnick at TeleTruth has reams of documents. Piles of data.
Probably a smoking gun. Yet you poo-poo his attempts.

I was one of the early birds to see that Brand-X was a Pandora's Box.
There was no victory possible.
Recall last April, many legal and industry experts were betting that we
would win Brand-X.

Part of me worries that the lawsuit will render all ISPs obsolete.
Especially without a roadmap. And part of planning is to learn from others
mistakes, not state: "Past experiences of others, especially those of
impotent state PUC's do not interest me, times are different and so are
the issues."

Cynthia has been pounding the halls of the Hill doing a great job.
However, during this past year, this industry has been on the receiving
end of some serious setbacks.  Advocate. Lobbyist. The game is called
Politics.  It is played at a truly high level in DC with billions of
dollars up for grabs. It's like playing Texas Hold-em with a handful of
chips.

A little Anti-Trust history. The US vs. GE anti-trust case was dismissed
after 9 years. "Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's
antitrust division, said the case had been dismissed because the passage
of time had reduced the significance of the case and any court order the
Government might win."

Microsoft had over 130 private anti-trust suits filed against it. Did
anyone win one?
The US vs. MS lasted 5 years.
Covad filed against VZ, but that was just a bargaining move.
Covad is still suing BST, filed in 2002.
NorthPoint tried to sue VZ for $4B in anti-trust, but settled for a 5%
ownership.
Sun has been suing Microsoft.
SCO is suing IBM.
Do you see the pattern here? Lots of big cases that take lots of time,
energy, effort and money. And the only winners are the lawyers.

I say expend the energy building a business based on Layer 1 or Layer 7.

Regards,

Peter


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll - Last post on this subject

[Peter R.]

Frank,

In the same day as your post on WISPA, you are asking if anyone is 
filing comments to the BST-AT&T merger on other lists.  Surely, your 
supporters will at least take 5 minutes to write a comment. No? Why not?
Because it is easier to say I support something verbally than to 
actually do something.


It is free to join WISPA, yet only 71 have listed their names / signed up.

II4A hired 2 lobbyists to write 7 template letters each, so that the 14 
templates would sound and look different.
Just download, sign and fax to your Congress Critter. How many people 
downloaded them? Less than 15.


At ISP-CEO, you could not concisely explain what the lawsuit purpose or 
goal was. (Maybe you announced too early).

Then when pushed you said: Physical Separation.

As PA has been the only state to ever consider such a notion, perhaps 
viewing the outcome in that state would be appropriate. (Remember that 
PA let VZ have final approval of all muni BB projects, by law).


Bruce Kushnick at TeleTruth has reams of documents. Piles of data. 
Probably a smoking gun. Yet you poo-poo his attempts.


I was one of the early birds to see that Brand-X was a Pandora's Box. 
There was no victory possible.
Recall last April, many legal and industry experts were betting that we 
would win Brand-X.


Part of me worries that the lawsuit will render all ISPs obsolete. 
Especially without a roadmap. And part of planning is to learn from 
others mistakes, not state: "Past experiences of others, especially 
those of impotent state PUC's do not interest me, times are different 
and so are the issues."


Cynthia has been pounding the halls of the Hill doing a great job. 
However, during this past year, this industry has been on the receiving 
end of some serious setbacks.  Advocate. Lobbyist. The game is called 
Politics.  It is played at a truly high level in DC with billions of 
dollars up for grabs. It's like playing Texas Hold-em with a handful of 
chips.


A little Anti-Trust history. The US vs. GE anti-trust case was dismissed 
after 9 years. "Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's 
antitrust division, said the case had been dismissed because the passage 
of time had reduced the significance of the case and any court order the 
Government might win."


Microsoft had over 130 private anti-trust suits filed against it. Did 
anyone win one?

The US vs. MS lasted 5 years.
Covad filed against VZ, but that was just a bargaining move.
Covad is still suing BST, filed in 2002.
NorthPoint tried to sue VZ for $4B in anti-trust, but settled for a 5% 
ownership.

Sun has been suing Microsoft.
SCO is suing IBM.
Do you see the pattern here? Lots of big cases that take lots of time, 
energy, effort and money. And the only winners are the lawyers.


I say expend the energy building a business based on Layer 1 or Layer 7.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.

For history's sake:
Former Member of FISPA on Vendor Committee and Legislative Committeee 
(even chaired the LC)
One of the Founders of the Independent ISPs for America (www.ii4a.org) 
and currently part-time director.

Search the FCC comment site: 17 filed comments





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Frank Muto]

Peter,
We can argue this back and forth all day and waste the members of WISPA
time. I will say this as nicely as possible, get off the negative soapbox.

Past experiences of others, especially those of impotent state PUC's do not
interest me, times are different and so are the issues. You voiced your
opinion at the ISP-CEO Exchange about the WBIA's announcements and let's
suffice it to say you are in the minority.

Both our directives are on a much different course and while I still have a
good day job, my involvement with forming the WBIA is a serious matter. The
creation of the WBIA was to provide a  presence in D.C., of which no
other (to my knowledge) association or trade group (non-profit or
for-profit) for non-xLEC service providers are representing this industry
group in D.C.

There are those here on this list that have gone to D.C. for WISPA at their
cost. Can we also be supportive and help represent WISPA, or any other group
or person for that matter in D.C. while making it cost effective to do so?
Yes, yes we can. We are an advocate and not a lobbying group. Though similar
in nature, there is a distinct difference between the two.

Advocate:
Educating legislators, urging support for a particular issue or cause
Lobbyist:
Asking for a vote in favor of or against a specific piece of legislation

That said, we are not on our own mission, but that of the service providers
who need assistance and or information about regulatory issues and in
dealing with the political processes. This is not about us, but about them
being either a wired, Wi-Fi, web host, VOIP etc., service provider. The WBIA
was formed to fill a need and we feel we can deliver it. I am not saying we
are going to always be successful, be we can make a difference in building
stronger relationships with those in D.C. on an ongoing basis and providing
a service cost effectively.

Does the WBIA have expenses, sure we do and have been self supported since
our inception. We feel the time has come to step it up a notch or two and
formally incorporate, as to enable the WBIA in accepting and accounting for
revenues and expenses to continue on doing what we are doing.

In closing I'll state one more time that I do not care about past
experiences of others at this time. Our legal counsel and advisory board
will help guide our attention where it will be of the greatest benefit. Sure
it is beneficial to learn from other failures' and mistakes', but it is not
worth the negative rhetoric to knock those of others working on solutions
for the future.




Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us






















- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




You better start collecting big $$ and handing checks to Senators or you
will never get it off the ground.

Don't you remember Penn. PSC over the VZ LD?
One week they decide to break it up.
AT&T says it will cost $250M; VZ says $1B
PSC Commissioners afraid that their car would explode.
6 weeks later they give VZ LD Relief instead.

Frank Muto wrote:


I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF
should
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the
percentage.
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the
Bell's
from the CO and form a regulated utility.

It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world and
see
if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.

Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not,  in the assumption
that
CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter
would
have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality
far
less the debates they are now.

Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of AT&T
in
1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate the
CO
plant away from the Bell's.




Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Peter R.]

You better start collecting big $$ and handing checks to Senators or you 
will never get it off the ground.


Don't you remember Penn. PSC over the VZ LD?
One week they decide to break it up.
AT&T says it will cost $250M; VZ says $1B
PSC Commissioners afraid that their car would explode.
6 weeks later they give VZ LD Relief instead.

Frank Muto wrote:

I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF 
should
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the 
percentage.
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the 
Bell's

from the CO and form a regulated utility.

It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world 
and see

if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.

Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not,  in the assumption 
that

CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter 
would

have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality 
far

less the debates they are now.

Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of 
AT&T in

1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate 
the CO

plant away from the Bell's.




Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Peter R.]

Dreaming...  hope you have a Plan B, Ethan Hunt.

Frank Muto wrote:

I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF 
should
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the 
percentage.
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the 
Bell's

from the CO and form a regulated utility.

It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world 
and see

if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.

Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not,  in the assumption 
that

CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter 
would

have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality 
far

less the debates they are now.

Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of 
AT&T in

1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate 
the CO

plant away from the Bell's.




Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Frank Muto]

I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF should
still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the percentage.
This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the 
Bell's

from the CO and form a regulated utility.

It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry
about a company's P&L, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world and see
if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and
reasonable competition for all.

Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not,  in the assumption that
CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of
such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter would
have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the
Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other
(current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality far
less the debates they are now.

Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of AT&T in
1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating
systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate the CO
plant away from the Bell's.




Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us










- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll



After all this time, you still don't get it
USF, taxes, and national interest are built into the PSTN.
The FCC E-911 ruling was just one hurdle to prevent VoIP from deflowering
the PSTN.
As it is, at every turn, the BOCs are losing lines.
Cable has taken almost 10M VoIP lines already.
Universities are moving to VOIP in droves.
U of South Florida in Tampa has 42000 Avaya handsets.
U of Central Florida in Orlando has 24000 handsets that Telcove just won
from BellSouth.
The VPF is on track for 10B minutes. (Might explain Primus' woes).
Hurricane damage hurt Sprint, SBC and BST these last 3 years - to the tune
of 100's of millions.
Profits are dropping quarter over quarter.
They are in a price war with cable while racking up debt.

Things will be done to preserve the USF fund and the tax base.
As Ken said at ISPCON: "Who wants to be in office when the PSTN goes
down?"

- Peter


Frank Muto wrote:


Well one would think so.  If the Bell's feel they need to be compensated,
then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they put out of business by use
of their political contributions. Their day is coming to pay the piper
one way or another.
 Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us <http://www.wbia.us>



--
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] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Peter R.]

After all this time, you still don't get it
USF, taxes, and national interest are built into the PSTN.
The FCC E-911 ruling was just one hurdle to prevent VoIP from 
deflowering the PSTN.

As it is, at every turn, the BOCs are losing lines.
Cable has taken almost 10M VoIP lines already.
Universities are moving to VOIP in droves.
U of South Florida in Tampa has 42000 Avaya handsets.
U of Central Florida in Orlando has 24000 handsets that Telcove just won 
from BellSouth.

The VPF is on track for 10B minutes. (Might explain Primus' woes).
Hurricane damage hurt Sprint, SBC and BST these last 3 years - to the 
tune of 100's of millions.

Profits are dropping quarter over quarter.
They are in a price war with cable while racking up debt.

Things will be done to preserve the USF fund and the tax base.
As Ken said at ISPCON: "Who wants to be in office when the PSTN goes down?"

- Peter


Frank Muto wrote:

Well one would think so.  If the Bell's feel they need to be 
compensated, then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they put out of 
business by use of their political contributions. Their day is coming 
to pay the piper one way or another.
 
 
 
Frank Muto

Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us 
 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Frank Muto]

Well one would think so.  If the Bell's feel 
they need to be compensated, then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they 
put out of business by use of their political contributions. Their day is coming 
to pay the piper one way or another.
 
 
 
Frank MutoCo-founder -  Washington Bureau 
for ISP Advocacy - WBIATelecom Summit Ad Hoc Committeehttp://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ 
www.wbia.us
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Cliff 
  Leboeuf 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:37 
PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web 
  toll
  
  
   
  CNN 
  Report…
   
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html
   
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] Coming soon: The Web toll

[Jeromie Reeves]

Is that not that what faster accounts are for?!?

Jeromie


Cliff Leboeuf wrote:


CNN Report…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/