Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-07 Thread John Thomas
This is a fantastic idea. I have a situation where I need to make a 24 
mile shot, and the tower owner already has 5 Ghz stuff on it and is 
reluctant to let me put 5 GHz equipment up. 6 GHz would be sweet, but I 
could probably use antennas smaller than 6 ft.


John


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's 
a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very 
long distances.


For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often 
kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or 
the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.


Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road 
it's a tough rule to deal with.


I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the 
person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.


I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna 
rule for the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue 
interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss 
out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-07 Thread John Thomas
Lonnie, it would not be unreasonable to allow 2' or larger dishes. I 
don't think anyone here is thinking about real short shots.


John


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:


APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance
is excessive for the antenna gain.  These conditions will cause the
transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your
lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere.

I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes.  That simple
rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of
polluting it for close in shots.

You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you
continually need more bands.  The growing trend to higher power and
wide beam antennas has to stop.  We are now doing a shot with 3 foot
antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just
over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day),
yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power
cards.

In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take
the easy way.  I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas
if the rules get changed as you are proposing.

I say that is a mistake.

Regards,
Lonnie


On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 


Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's a
pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long
distances.

For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the
deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or the building
owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.

Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a
tough rule to deal with.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person
at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.

I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for
the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue interference in the band
due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power
control) requirement to use smaller antennas.

Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
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] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-06 Thread A. Huppenthal

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3525631

The next headline: Desperate Telco DSL partners look to wireless as 
salvation.

Telcos clean up stealing ISP DSL customers.
Spectrum Auction Prices Jump in Value as DSL 1 year transition period ends

So yes, WISPs will be the remaining alternative to DSL / Cable in 12 
months, cause you ain't going to get the FCC or any Anti-trust 
legislation, Telcos don't want to share 'their' copper infrastructure, 
(which the wrote off many years ago through tax breaks)


The opportunity here is for the Covad's of the world to join forces with 
the WISPs to create low cost national alternatives to DSL and Cable.


Will the FCC recognize WISPs and WISPA as a driving force?
Will the FCC give the public back more spectrum? Since we all own it to 
begin with.
Will WISPs be able to compete and innovate in the every tightening 
political environment which is Telco and large company centric?


I think, only if WISPA wins.

JNA wrote:


We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have
spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other
than what we use that help trash it.

John

 


Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum.
Sadly I cannot find that statement.

I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we
should be given any more.  When someone is not responsible with their
spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things
to be fixed by getting more.  We already have an incredible amount of
bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people.

Lonnie


On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   


Marlon and Lonnie,

First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not
 


suggest
   


rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs.

However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in
these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to
 


every
   


ounce of spectrum that we can.

I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way
 


to
   


have 6 Ghz more usable for us.  It is factual that the 6 foot antenna
requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost
effectively.  I personally am effected by this and could have need for
 


the
   


band.  However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I
 


think
   


would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous.   I'd
suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it
 


usable
   


for us.  For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was
 


reduced
   


down to a 3 ft dish?  Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty
 


easy
   


getting approval for a 3 ft dish.

Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today,
excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are
 


talking
   


about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean
 


much
   


unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or
Trango :-)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc







- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General
 


List
   


wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


 


I think you guys are wrong on this.  This is still a ptp band and it's
licensed.  So interference issues can be dealt with.

As for links that are not correctly aimed.  Why in the world would we
   


want
   


to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because
   


some
   


minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up?

Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could
modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig.  It's not
   


all
   


that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear
   


because
   


you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or because it's licensed
   


gear
   


it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed.

It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes.  A man once
   


told me
   


that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers.
Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to
   


happen
   


that it'll matter.  Or we can take steps now to deal with those
   


issues.
   


Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue.  You
   


have
   


protection against that.

I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or
   


900.
   


He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands.  Even the big boy
   


toys
   


won't work well anymore.  Even ptp links.  He's getting by but it's
getting much harder all

Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-06 Thread A. Huppenthal

17 dBi on 6 footer goes 32 miles here with 30 db fade margin @ 6 ghz

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

Can you tell me the frequencies in the 6 GHz bands that are desired? 
Are there any modulation limits, as to bandwidth and power output? 
What sort of distances are typically involved?  A 6 foot dish can push

a signal a very long distance or have a very high signal at a shorter
distance.

Lonnie

On 8/6/05, A. Huppenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 


$20K is about right for the radios for a licensed path. $500 to $2000
for the path analysis and license.

The market has set that price. If 200 ISPs that belong to WISPA
indicated their interest.. Well Lonnie might make them or someone else.
The chipsets are there to operate in those bands, getting the FCC to
allow them to be used in that band is a challenge.

Whatever anyone wants to say about improve our effiency in using
existing spectrum, we need to be fighting for more at this point, since
there will be a swell of DSL users moving to Fixed wireless over the
next year, as Telcos attempt to dominate that marketplace. Which will
in-turn cause more congestion on the airwaves. That and the
Anti-competitive actions of telcos - pricing below cost, are the two
areas I recommend we all focus on.

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

   


Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios)
for a shade under $20k.  Might be a bit lower now as it's been a
couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's
standards.

Let me say this again guys.  We're talking LICENSED bands here.
Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used.  If
you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop.
It's just that simple.

I honestly see few down sides to this idea.

I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in.
So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing.  I must admit I'm
more than a bit shocked.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


 


Marlon and Lonnie,

First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not
suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do
poor designs.

However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially
in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access
to every ounce of spectrum that we can.

I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a
way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us.  It is factual that the 6 foot
antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use
the band cost effectively.  I personally am effected by this and
could have need for the band.  However doing away with the large
antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band
with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the
rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us.  For example,
what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft
dish?  Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting
approval for a 3 ft dish.

Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market
today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we
are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost,
that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking
about unlicenced redline or Trango :-)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc







- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General
List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


   


I think you guys are wrong on this.  This is still a ptp band and
it's licensed.  So interference issues can be dealt with.

As for links that are not correctly aimed.  Why in the world would
we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just
because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely
screw up?

Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could
modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig.  It's not
all that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use that
gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or because
it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed.

It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes.  A man once
told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with
our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely
enough

Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-05 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a 
shade under $20k.  Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. 
For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards.


Let me say this again guys.  We're talking LICENSED bands here. 
Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used.  If you 
get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop.  It's just 
that simple.


I honestly see few down sides to this idea.

I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in.  So far 
it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing.  I must admit I'm more than a 
bit shocked.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule



Marlon and Lonnie,

First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest 
rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs.


However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in 
these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to 
every ounce of spectrum that we can.


I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to 
have 6 Ghz more usable for us.  It is factual that the 6 foot antenna 
requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost 
effectively.  I personally am effected by this and could have need for the 
band.  However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I 
think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. 
I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it 
usable for us.  For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was 
reduced down to a 3 ft dish?  Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and 
pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish.


Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, 
excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking 
about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean 
much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline 
or Trango :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc







- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List 
wireless@wispa.org

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


I think you guys are wrong on this.  This is still a ptp band and it's 
licensed.  So interference issues can be dealt with.


As for links that are not correctly aimed.  Why in the world would we 
want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because 
some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up?


Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could 
modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig.  It's not all 
that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear 
because you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or because it's 
licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed.


It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes.  A man once told 
me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. 
Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen 
that it'll matter.  Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. 
Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue.  You 
have protection against that.


I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. 
He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands.  Even the big boy 
toys won't work well anymore.  Even ptp links.  He's getting by but it's 
getting much harder all of the time.  He needs the 6 gig band to pull 
some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size 
issue.


And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix.  6' antennas are 
listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome.  That's for a good 
Radio Waves unit, but still.


I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the 
potential upside.  I see a few that don't think it's a good thing.  Do 
the rest of you agree with that?  I happen to think that anything that 
gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad 
things is a good thing to try to do.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp

Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-05 Thread Ron Wallace
I have some experience at 6, 11, 13, 18  23 GHz, more at 6, 
11 13.  These were all carrier links never used a 6' dish 
unless it was a short path, less than 8 mi., usually 6 or 
less.  WE built 40 dB fade margin into every path.  tried to 
keep the radiated signal beem as narrow as possible, larger 
antennas, greater gain, they don't burn out.  Downside is 
stiffer towers, very expensive.

However, at 6 and 11 you can get 672 Mb/s and that's good.  I 
don't have the money right now or I would have a two hop 
system to Southfield MI where a meg is around 100-125.

My point, the licensed spectrum is excellent, no 
interference, and w/ enough fade margin it rocks.

Lonnie and Marlon - I support everything they say, nearly.  
We need to use whatever we can get our hands on, that lifts 
our advantage.

So keep it up guys.

 Original message 
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:03:55 -0700
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule  
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org

Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, 
just radios) for a 
shade under $20k.  Might be a bit lower now as it's been a 
couple of years. 
For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards.

Let me say this again guys.  We're talking LICENSED bands 
here. 
Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are 
used.  If you 
get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy 
stop.  It's just 
that simple.

I honestly see few down sides to this idea.

I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here 
chime in.  So far 
it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing.  I must admit 
I'm more than a 
bit shocked.

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment 
sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting 
services
42846865 (icq)And I run 
my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


 Marlon and Lonnie,

 First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we 
should not suggest 
 rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do 
poor designs.

 However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, 
expecially in 
 these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to 
gain access to 
 every ounce of spectrum that we can.

 I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea 
to find a way to 
 have 6 Ghz more usable for us.  It is factual that the 6 
foot antenna 
 requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use 
the band cost 
 effectively.  I personally am effected by this and could 
have need for the 
 band.  However doing away with the large antenna rule all 
togeather I 
 think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is 
advantageous. 
 I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent 
necessary to make it 
 usable for us.  For example, what if the min antenna size 
requirement was 
 reduced down to a 3 ft dish?  Thats still down to around 5 
degrees, and 
 pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish.

 Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the 
market today, 
 excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park 
we are talking 
 about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that 
doesn't mean 
 much unless you identify wether you were talking about 
unlicenced redline 
 or Trango :-)

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc







 - Original Message - 
 From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Lonnie Nunweiler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List 
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


I think you guys are wrong on this.  This is still a ptp 
band and it's 
licensed.  So interference issues can be dealt with.

 As for links that are not correctly aimed.  Why in the 
world would we 
 want to give up on what could be a very useful rule 
change just because 
 some minority (probably a very small minority) will 
likely screw up?

 Think, instead about how nice it would be if the 
manufacturers could 
 modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 
gig.  It's not all 
 that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use 
that gear 
 because you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or 
because it's 
 licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of 
unlicensed.

 It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes.  A 
man once told 
 me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating 
with our fingers. 
 Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely 
enough to happen 
 that it'll matter.  Or we can take steps now to deal with 
those issues. 
 Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an 
issue

RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

2005-08-04 Thread Rick Smith

I'm in favor of that

How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ?

I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. 
Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM
To: FCC Discussion
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule

Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's a pretty 
cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances.

For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the 
deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or the building owner 
doesn't want such large antennas etc.

Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a 
tough rule to deal with.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at 
the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.

I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 
6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to 
the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power
control) requirement to use smaller antennas.

Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005
 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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