Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-29 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Believe me, I'm all in favor of more efficient radio systems.  Anything like 
those slow, use up the whole band, FHSS radios really needs to go away 
j/k  hehehehe


Anyhow Brad, what's wrong with BOTH?  More spectrum AND more efficient 
radios.


I think the sad truth of the matter is that most manufactures are likely to 
stick to the current 20 mhz channel sizes unless forced to do something 
else.  They'll just keep giving us more and more speed from that 20 mhz.


Good or bad, cars are built to the size of the road and vise verse today. 
Same for trains, ships via the panama canal etc.


I'd love to be wrong.  But so far it's looking like everyone wants that 
stupid triple play thing and that means bandwidth.  Lots of it.  And 
bandwidth takes channel size.


laters,
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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - 
Version 2




A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what
you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a
whopping total of 10 mhz.

I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650
not the amount of spectrum.

Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems 
and

not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most
systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient,
or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point 
that

the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the
future. Brad




-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
Version 2


Understood.  But it is only 50 mhz.  How much is itfs?  How much is mmds?
How much was the new 5.4 gig band?

Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band.

I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all 
excited


about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it
useful!  My how times change.  grin.

Your point is well taken though.  What would you suggest as an 
alternative?


What are other people's thoughts?

thanks,
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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-29 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Whoa there Haas!  I NEVER said that wifi would be a good thing at 3650.  I 
agree with you that YOU guys should give us much more efficient radios 
when/if we get that band opened up.


However, I DO like the contention based mechanism.  And most wisps do when 
they understand what it means (licensed quality without the licensed price). 
You guys should combine APC, DFS and SDR in this band and give us the best 
of all available systems AND we get to keep our protection from Tsunami 
style radios.


WiFi's 22 mhz wide channel is out dated at best and should be changed.  It 
should be flexible, use less where you need the scalability and more where 
you need the speed (backhaul vs. distribution etc.).


The point I'm trying to make with these comments is that the FCC is on the 
right track.  But the industry is growing so far and so fast that there 
needs to be even more.  5 years from when it's introduced will see 3650 
swamped in some markets.  Maybe less.  If we don't start thinking that way 
now, what will people do while we take another 5 years to find more 
spectrum?


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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - 
Version 2



Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the 
mark.

Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better
than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously
they have the deeper pockets.

The whole reason I brought the word efficient up was because many WISP's
believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it
as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like
others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that
will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air! 
Let's

not waste it or look foolish.. like Steve Stroh said, So, stating
only 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much empathy at the FCC.
Brad


-Original Message-
From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
Version 2


I don't think any of us are opposed to more efficient, and frankly, it
seems that more efficient is coming down the pike.   The evolution of data
vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a
relatively short period of time.

I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists...  Ubiquitous
last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum
efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it
revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay.

How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single
residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread
*acceptance*?

We're ALL deployers with the notion of build it, and they will come to 
a
larger or smaller degree.   Some of us don't build until they come, but 
in
all cases,  consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, 
is

the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous
broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of
residental broadband.   I said that residental broadband is the key to 
WISP

success.   Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not
even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is
such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband 
by

WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my
contention.  It remains so.

The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's
end cost barrier to start had to be minimal.   They bought CPE by the
millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of
shoes.Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance.

Which brings us full circle.  How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates
that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the
consumer?Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end.
Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate...  How do we 
get

advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear
which can be deployed at cost points that win the acceptance war?

It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this
point.   I am convinced that  in 10 years, we're going to be offering
today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
 or the egg.  I'll  take either
one.  But whatever it is, it has to be useable, at ubiquitous acceptance
price points, by anyone.  So, is that cheap technology that is spectrally
efficient, with small slices of protected spectrum?   Or is it broad
spectrum, so cheap technology can take advantage of it to build acceptance
and critical mass of purchasing and manufact uring scale to achieve the
cheap, GOOD technology?

Thus, deploying gear that costs $200 / end for backhual/ distribution in
3650 is the key to rapid acceptance.  And that rapid acceptance will bring
about the technological generations that bring the 3, 5, and 7 mhz wide and
efficient uses.If use is restricted until that becomes available, I
predict it never will, and we will have failed to gain sufficient mass, and
our industry does a pratfall, become relegated to solely niche markets.

I've hedged all my bets.   I chose a niche market, and seek price levels
which will bring ubiquitous acceptance.What can I say,  it's only how I
think...



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
Version 2


 A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what
 you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a
 whopping total of 10 mhz.

 I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650
 not the amount of spectrum.

 Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems
and
 not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most
 systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient,
 or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point
that
 the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the
 future. Brad




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Blair Davis
I have little need of more microwave spectrum.  I need spectrum in the 
low UHF or high VHF bands to get thru these trees.


I think many, if not most, rural WISP's would agree with me.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC



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


Hi All,

Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be 
sent to the commerce committee folks.  For those that don't know there 
are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue.


As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here:





Monday, March 27, 2006




WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper




WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade 
association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership 
elected board.





We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in 
saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. 
The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level 
limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear 
line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to 
customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or 
other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. 
For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that 
which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this 
writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. 
The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even 
when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of 
spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be 
able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers 
we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that 
can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which 
accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they 
ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are 
currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate 
Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking 
the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This 
will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high 
quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural 
areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed 
use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain 
our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to 
these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today.





At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses 
relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is 
licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in 
nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent 
ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed.





Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's 
possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago.





Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market 
that measure their environment and change channels to avoid 
interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed 
between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 
rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in 
any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm 
is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. 
Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio 
on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 
rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed 
use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs 
have every intention of making full use of any of these unused 
television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we 
will make sure we do no harm.





The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz 
spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost 
effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television 
channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of 
ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this 
spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of 
the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet 
to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern 
communications to every citizen.





Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even 
in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the 
available channels are largely unused for any purpose. Even channels 
that are utilized in a given 

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Understood.  But it is only 50 mhz.  How much is itfs?  How much is mmds? 
How much was the new 5.4 gig band?


Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band.

I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited 
about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it 
useful!  My how times change.  grin.


Your point is well taken though.  What would you suggest as an alternative?

What are other people's thoughts?

thanks,
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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - 
Version 2




I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The
industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally
efficient systems with what we get for free...





-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:02 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
Version 2


Hi All,

Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to
the commerce committee folks.  For those that don't know there are a 
couple

of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue.

As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here:





Monday, March 27, 2006




WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper




WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade
association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected
board.




We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in 
saying


that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz
band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though.
It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means
it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in 
locations

where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service
tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz
frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television
channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally 
in

the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of
limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 
50
MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to 
be


able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we
have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can
penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts 
for


60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in
areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. 
The


remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this
obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed
rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas 
to


be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even
the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to
unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America
regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access 
to


these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today.




At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating 
to
spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. 
The


basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now.
Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good
example, but the basic principal has not changed.




Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's 
possible


today, not what was possible 70 years ago.




Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market 
that

measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There
are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and
adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for
requires these technological features in any system using unused 
television
channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to 
licensed

users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from
an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The 
standards


in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

Could you say something that looks a bit like this:

3650 is unlikely to be a wide-spread last mile distribution spectrum because
manufacturers are unlikely to develop an array cost-effective end user
solutions for only 50 mhz of contiguous spectrum.   Instead, it will
effectively become a middle mile, with single point solutions adapted from
other licensed or unlicensed spectrum, effectively becoming backbone and
infrastructure, rather than last mile distribution.   While an important
asset in the hands of providers, it, in itself, is not possible to be that
ubitquitous last mile.

Does that perspective seem accurate and more diplomatic?



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position
Paper -Version 2


 Understood.  But it is only 50 mhz.  How much is itfs?  How much is mmds?
 How much was the new 5.4 gig band?

 Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band.

 I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all
excited
 about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it
 useful!  My how times change.  grin.

 Your point is well taken though.  What would you suggest as an
alternative?

 What are other people's thoughts?

 thanks,
 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: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
 Version 2


 I would strike the only 50 MHz of spectrum statement about 3650. The
  industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally
  efficient systems with what we get for free...
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Steve Stroh


MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's 
fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or 
subtracted.


5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz.

Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular 
telephone industry in the US using analog technology.


So, stating only 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much empathy 
at the FCC.


FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the WHOLE TV band is:

Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz
Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz
Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments.


Thanks,

Steve


On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Understood.  But it is only 50 mhz.  How much is itfs?  How much is 
mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band?


Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band.

I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all 
excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to 
make it useful!  My how times change.  grin.


Your point is well taken though.  What would you suggest as an 
alternative?


What are other people's thoughts?

thanks,
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


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2

2006-03-28 Thread Ron Wallace
Yes, Yes i would like to have groups of 3, 6 MHz channels right about 518-580 MHz, boy would that smoke.-Original Message-From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 02:59 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted.5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz.Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology.So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC.FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is:Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHzChannels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHzTotal 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments.Thanks,SteveOn Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is  mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all  excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to  make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an  alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, 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---Steve Stroh425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com-- 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/