Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration)
compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for
get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

>Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp
>type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed,
>but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you
>wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a
>PTP radio.
>
>Patrick 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>
>The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered 
>bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but 
>sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the 
>shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I 
>don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
>interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
>spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
>WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
>operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
>service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
>Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" 
>services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
>would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
>but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.
>
>-Matt
>
>Patrick Leary wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz
>>    
>>
>in
>  
>
>>900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power
primary
>>users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should
have
>>the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort.
>>Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.
>>
>>I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into
something
>>like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
>>entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which
case
>>the entire range should be usable.
>>
>>Patrick 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>
>>Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.
>>
>>-Matt
>>
>>Patrick Leary wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed
>>>      
>>>
>3.65
>  
>
>>>product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>in
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>utility
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
>>>support essentially splitting the band.
>>>
>>>Patrick Leary
>>>AVP Marketing
>>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>>o: 650.314.2628
>>>c: 760.580.0080
>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>>Hi Patrick,
>>>
>>>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@
unless
>>>3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
>>>(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
>>>breakfast, lunch & dinner =(
>>>
>>>-Charles
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>CWLab
>>>Technology Architects
>>>http://www.cwlab.com 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>Behalf Of Patrick Leary
>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>>
>>>A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
>>>much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.
>>>
>>>Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
>>>      
>>>
>factors
>  
>
>>>are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>version
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the
base
>>>station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>SIM
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation
and
>>>you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.
>>>
>>>Patrick Leary
>>>AVP Marketing
>>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>>o: 650.314.2628
>>>c: 760.580.0080
>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>3.5Ghz does,
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>on
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>900Mhz.
>>>
>>>What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?
>>>
>>>With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP
>>>      
>>>
>or
>  
>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.
>>>
>>>Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.
>>>
>>>Tom DeReggi
>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
>>>>service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.
>>>>
>>>>5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>>>>
>>>>5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
>>>>
>>>>4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors
>>>>
>>>>3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by 
>>>>clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
>>>>indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
>>>>availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
>>>>At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
>>>>ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.
>>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" 
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>How do you figure?
>>>>>You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Tom DeReggi
>>>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Frankly,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
>>>>>>industry
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
>>>>>>small
>>>>>>and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
>>>>>>deployments
>>>>>>outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
>>>>>>>Form 477s also
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
>>>>>>>"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just 
>>>>>>>reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just 
>>>>>>>creates a bunch of "cowboys" that
>>>>>>>can't be taken seriously
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
>>>>>>>flamingo
>>>>>>>suit when he represents the industry in DC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Charles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>CWLab
>>>>>>>Technology Architects
>>>>>>>http://www.cwlab.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>On
>>>>>>>Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>>>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier 
>>>>>>>deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is 
>>>>>>>a test. I know
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 
>>>>>>>2000
>>>>>>>CPE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" 
>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
>>>>>>>>"test"
>>>>>>>>a single base station?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini
>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>>>>>>>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
>>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gino,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial 
>>>>>>>>service?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jack
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Towerstream anyone ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini
>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>>>>>>>>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>On Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) 
>>>>>>>>>of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a 
>>>>>>>>>licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial,
>>>>>>>>>revenue-generating
>>>>>>>>>purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1. Someone with no business sense
>>>>>>>>>2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the 
>>>>>>>>>enforcement powers of the FCC
>>>>>>>>>3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
>>>>>>>>>4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, 
>>>>>>>>>long-term
>>>>>>>>>WISP service.
>>>>>>>>>             jack
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jeffrey thomas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Patrick,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" 
>>>>>>>>>>deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access 
>>>>>>>>>>service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band 
>>>>>>>>>>aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC 
>>>>>>>>>>cracking down on them is very low.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will 
>>>>>>>>>>be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my 
>>>>>>>>>>sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" 
>>>>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch 
>>>>>>>>>>>any commercial services using 3650MHz.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>- Patrick
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be 
>>>>>>>>>>>"breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>Cc: <isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com>; 
>>>>>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz
>>>>>>>>>>>Band -
>>>>>>>>>>>Clarifications
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements 
>>>>>>>>>>>promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of 
>>>>>>>>>>>avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII 
>>>>>>>>>>>bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
>>>>>>>>>>>back
>>>>>>>>>>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless 
>>>>>>>>>>>broadband
>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed

>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as 
>>>>>>>>>>>equipment
>>>>>>>>>>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the
>>>>>>>>>>>details.
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As
>>>>>>>>>>>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today 
>>>>>>>>>>>falls
>>>>>>>>>>>under
>>>>>>>>>>>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs 
>>>>>>>>>>>to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than 
>>>>>>>>>>>one of "commercial network expansion."  Part 5 permits 
>>>>>>>>>>>experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the 
>>>>>>>>>>>opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services 
>>>>>>>>>>>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be 
>>>>>>>>>>>permitted to conduct the following type of operations:
>>>>>>>>>>>(a)    Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
>>>>>>>>>>>(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the
United
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>States
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Government, or for export purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>>(c)    Communications essential to a research project.
>>>>>>>>>>>(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
>>>>>>>>>>>(e)    Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for
>>>>>>>>>>>authorization
>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>any other service.
>>>>>>>>>>>(f)     Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by
>>>>>>>>>>>persons
>>>>>>>>>>>engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>(g)    Testing of equipment in connection with production or
>>>>>>>>>>>regulatory
>>>>>>>>>>>approval of such equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>(h)    Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering 
>>>>>>>>>>>data
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>related to an existing or proposed service, including field or 
>>>>>>>>>>>factory testing or calibration of equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>(i)      Development of radio technique, equipment, operational 
>>>>>>>>>>>data
>>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>>>engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio
service.
>>>>>>>>>>>(j)     Limited market studies.
>>>>>>>>>>>(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered
under
>>>>>>>>>>>paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered 
>>>>>>>>>>>upon demonstration of need
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>(a)    Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio 
>>>>>>>>>>>Service
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>>issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation 
>>>>>>>>>>>utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation 
>>>>>>>>>>>data directly related to a use of radio not provided by 
>>>>>>>>>>>existing rules; or for communications in connection
>>>>>>>>>>>with research projects when existing communications facilities
are
>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>(a)    Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental 
>>>>>>>>>>>Radio
>>>>>>>>>>>Service
>>>>>>>>>>>must enclose with the application a narrative statement 
>>>>>>>>>>>describing in detail the program of research and 
>>>>>>>>>>>experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>accomplished; and how the program of experimentation
>>>>>>>>>>>has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development,
>>>>>>>>>>>extension,
>>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>>>expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>already
>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>investigated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>For further information regarding experimental licensing, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on 
>>>>>>>>>>>experimental licensing: 
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>CWLab
>>>>>>>>>>>Technology Architects
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.cwlab.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>*******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>******
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>*
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>**
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>********
>>>>>>>>>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious 
>>>>>>>>>>>code, vandals & computer viruses.
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>*
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>**
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>********
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>*******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>******
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>*
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>**
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>********
>>>>>>>>>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been 
>>>>>>>>>>>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious 
>>>>>>>>>>>code, vandals & computer viruses.
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>*
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>**
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>********
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. 
>>>>>>>>Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of 
>>>>>>>>the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True 
>>>>>>>>Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
>>>>>>>>Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP 
>>>>>>>>Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>
>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>
>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>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/



 
 
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********






 
 
****************************************************************************
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
viruses.
****************************************************************************
********


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to