Yes, but....
All I want is a better radio.
The Dream is... Wimax is interoperabilty certified to a standard.
The Reality is... Who can get me a better radio sooner.
(See previous Post)
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:53 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for
UL. I did not say in detail why (at least not in this post). For sure it
is because the MAC was developed for licensed (LMDS actually) -- that's
my point. It was never conceived of for UL.
---
Also, there IS a WiMAX UL standard -- the profile has been in place for
over a year. There just is not equipment and there has been no UL
certification yet. http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view The reason
has nothing to do with Europe (Alvarion's Mariana Goldhamer led the
harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and IEEE 802.16 several years ago).
The main vendors in the Forum (the ones that really drive things) all
know the deal with UL and they are in no rush to deliver WiMAX in it's
current form onto the U.S. market. Also, the existing UL WiMAX profile
is for 802.16d-2004. The whole of the Forum is focusing on 802.16e-2005,
in fact, the entire WiMAX "ecosystem" you hear about it all relative to
802.16e-2005. Migrations from .16d-2005 to .16e-2005 are not software
type changes. All that combined with the non-UL MAC = "folks will be
sorry" for sinking CAPEX into certain UL WiMAX. Buyer beware and know
the deal.
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the
WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit.
Fact is,
it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready.
IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original
802.16 plan. Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the
game.
Anyone that buys it before
the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.
Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like
pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ...
except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at
some future date if the hardware is WiMAX. I dunno ... I think the
reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the
ball with HyperLAN2. It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL
5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers
all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development & licensing.
(Maybe, maybe not) For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16
originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement
IIRC).
Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or
prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band? Sigh...
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Leary
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times
and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the
myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has
lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in
UL
bands.
I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not
have
UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your
head
and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially
INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been
selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over
50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You
have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have
introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact
is,
it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it
before
the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.
I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?)
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is?
Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon.
But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Comroe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than
sensitivity. At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the
20mbps
Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances.
OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the
10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly
higher
C/Is). OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can
operate
with less signal than 20mbps Canopy. And as you already expressed,
with
17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster.
But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can
tolerate
partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop
cold.
Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of
time
framed systems. I sometimes get wrong "who is advocating what" in
email
threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong. I'm a
great
fan
of time framed systems myself.
>It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system
>would have performed?
I think you'll get your wish. Isn't this what WiMAX is?
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom DeReggi
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Marlon,
You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge
those
definitions.
However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses
to
my
comments.
I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the
reader
would apply their knowledge of the definitions, to infer the
relevance
of
comments made.
To be more clear....
OFDM is plagued by a larger SNR to operate adequately, compared to
DSSS.
DSSS has been able to operate with minimum SNRs anywhere from 3db
(canopy)
to 8db (trango).
Actually that comment is not exactly true, Canopy's C/I is 3db (not
minimum
SNR required).
OFDM gear typically wants to see a minimum of 17db SNR, and performs
optimally with > 25db SNR.
I'm not aware that Wifi gear has worse C/I specs than non-Wifi gear,
based
on it being Wifi (csma/ca).
Wifi or TDD has nothing to do with Noise, Wifi & TDD has to do with
timing
of transmissions.
My point was that if you can't get over the noise, when using
modulations
less able to get over the noise, you can help solve the problem by
transmitting when the noise is not occuring.
Contant time based transmission has little benefit, if it occurs
during a
noisy time where that noise will kill the signal and results in
packet
loss.
I'd rather have increased latency, and try again, to prevent packet
loss.
>> I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS
to be
>> able to survive the noise, with better SNRs
Meant... DSSS gets over noise better than OFDM, and I like TDD gear
when
the gear can survive the noise floor, and DSSS gear is more likely
to
survive the noise floor, and well matched with TDD.
If using OFDM, requiring larger SNR, harder to accomplish in high
noise
environements, a non-TDD based scheduling MAC such as CSMA/CA can
improve
overall end to end performance and reduce packet loss.
A lost packet, end to end across a session, takes up WAY more
bandwdith
and
has a penalty of WAY more LAtency, than hiding the packet loss from
the
session, and re-transmitting the loss at the specific link that the
packet
loss occured.
The point I am making is that so many people judge performance by
Link
performance, which means nothing in terms of the performance that
the
end
user experiences end to end. End USer Performance is about
preventing
and
minimizing packet loss.
A perfect exmaple was a link that I had to rebuild today. I tried
to
pull
off a ofdm 900 Mhz link. I have a registered noise floor of -85, and
an
average signal of -55, but I had to pull out the link, because end
to
end,
the best I could accomplish was 5-10% packet loss. The reason is
that
sporatic paging noise peaked loud enough to interfere with my signal
(although not seen with cheap limited wifi built-in noise
detection).
I
was
able to do a radio to radio throughout test of almost 10 mbps. But
thats
not what the end user saw, trying to type in his remote office
application.
More like 30 seconds to see his characters show up on the screen
after
he
typed them. But web browsing appeared OK. This particular case it
demonstrates the harm of packet loss, allthough limited in relevance
as it
was a OFDM CSMA/CA link. Trango 900 DSSS w/ nosie compression
built-in
and
ARQ, would have likely solved the problem. But thats because of
DSSS's
noise resilience, Trango compression (noise filtering) and ARQ, not
because
of its TDD spec. It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM
TDD
system
would have performed? I can test it, because one doesn't exist,
atleast
not
that I own. But I bet it would perform pretty poorly. I believe
the
CSMA/CA was the saving grace that allowed the link to be tolerable
at
all
(web browsing), with the random packet loss.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
> oh oh. This one's gonna be fun. I'll warn ya now Tom, this is
nothing
> personal.....
>
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own
wisp!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>
>
>> marlon,
>>
>> I have to disagree, and state the opposite.
>> I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS
to be
>> able to survive the noise, with better SNRs.
>
> OK, there's a problem here. Lets make sure we're talking the same
> acronyms and such.
>
> TDD = Time Division Duplex. In our case, this part really doesn't
mean
> much of anything.
> DSSS = Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum,
> SNR = Signal to Noise Ratio. This is the one that you fine tune
on
a CB
> radio to get the his to go away.
>
> For these and many more kindly take advantage of work I did years
ago:
> http://www.odessaoffice.com/wireless/definitions.htm
>
>> The problem occurs when DSSS is not enough to get above the
noise.
>
> This is a problem when using DSSS, FHSS, OFDM, FM or any other
modulation
> scheme we're using today.
>
>> When the noise is other OFDM
>
> OFDM is NOT DSSS or FHSS. It's Orthogonal Frequency Division
> Multiplexing. "I totally don't know what that is but I want it!"
roflol
>
>> or Wifi contention gear,
>
> WiFi is an interoperability standard based on IEEE standards.
Today
WiFi
> can be either DSSS or OFDM, I'm not aware of any WiFi FHSS
product.
> 802.11b is DSS, 802.11a and g are OFDM.
>
>> possibly louder than your own signal, using CSMA/CA actually
performs
>> much better in the severe interference environments.
>
> Define better. No, I'm not trying to pull a Clinton here. If you
want
to
> compare DSS to FHSS then, yes in certain types of noisy
conditions,
DSS
> can overcome the noise by spreading it's data packets over a
larger
area.
> It's able to rebuild damaged data packets or to just ignore some
times
of
> noise that would cause an FHSS signal to back off and retransmit
on
a
> different freqency, causing a rise in latency and a drop in speed.
>
> A DSSS signal spreads the data over (in the WiFi example you site)
22
MHz
> of spectrum. An FHSS signal spreads that same data over 1 MHz,
but
it
> hops around interference.
>
> I remember seeing a couple of graphs years ago. They showed an
ever
> increasing noise level and it's impact on DSSS and FHSS. The DSSS
stayed
> at or near full speed longer than the FHSS but once the noise got
too
high
> it totally dropped off line.
>
> The FHSS system, on the other hand, showed the noise as an overall
> slowdown but kept on going long after that DSSS system rolled over
and
wet
> on it's self. I'm hearing mixed results about OFDM. Some say it
works
> better yet in interference, some say it dies much sooner. I
really
don't
> know. It would be nice to see someone run all three systems in a
lab so
> we could see the same tests. In fact it would be fun to see that
same
> test with several proprietary systems too. If only I had more
time
and
> money! That's exactly the kind of tinkering that I live for!
>
>>The reason is TDD is guaranteed to transmit during the noisy
period,
some
>>percentage of time.
>
> Nope. Not true at all. Been there, done that. I have more than
one
> T-shirt. It TOTALLY depends on the type of noise and it's levels
in
> relation to your carrier to interference ratios (also known as
SNR).
>
> If you have narrow band interference DSSS can (and OFDM should)
work
> around it. It'll be able to recreate the missing data bits and
deliver
a
> good data packet. Or, if the noise is far enough off of the
center
> frequency (the middle part of the 22 MHz wide channel) it'll
likely
just
> completely ignore the noise. Lets say, for example that you are
running
a
> WiFi based system and your customers radio is hitting your AP in
the
B
> mode with a -65 signal. WiFi radios need around a 15 dB c/i radio.
So
as
> long as your noise level was below -80 this system should work
pretty
> well. If the noise hit -75 though I'd expect to see some service
> degredation.
>
> Canopy requires a roughly 3dB c/i ratio. It would still be
working
at
> a -69 dB noise floor. Hit -65 with the noise, and neither of them
will
> work.
>
>> With CSMA/CA the radio waits for FREE time, or at minimum
retransmits
>> until it gets FREE spectrum. This can increase latency
significantly,
but
>> it does reduce packet loss, which is more important.
>
> Remember, CSMA/CA is WiFi!!!! That's the backoff mechanism that
makes
it
> so easy to co-locate so many systems in a confined area like an
office
or
> appartment complex.
>
> The problem one runs into is that when there is a noise floor
above
your
> c/i there is NEVER free air to transmit in.
>
>>
>> TDD w/ ARQ,
>
> Now we're talking apples and oranges. TDD is still Time Division
> Duplexing (vs. an FDD Frequency Division Duplexing) mechanism.
ARQ
is
an
> advanced means of correcting errors that already took place during
> transmission. The error could have been caused by any number of
things
> including interference. But ARQ (as I understand it) is NOT a way
to
> prevent errors, rather it's a way to recover from them, hopefully
without
> the need for a retransmission.
>
>> can be even better, provided one has a high end radio, that can
be
>> engineered for both ARQ and optimal link quality. But not all ARQ
radio
>> can be optimized for best RSSI. I'd take 8 db of higher RSSI,
than
ARQ,
>> because their is no need for ARQ, if you are adequately above the
noise.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Alvarion's strength is it empowers an operator to engineer a more
durable
>> link, based on antenna quality and flexibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>>
>>
>>> Got it. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I guess my "beef" comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it
too
>>> difficult to reject interference with a csma based product.
Anything
>>> with a "wait for clear air, then transmit" MAC is GREAT for
collocation.
>>> But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that
>>> mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's
GPS
>>> sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time
to
>>> transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the
AP's.
>>>
>>> My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or
whatever
>>> collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there
aren't
>>> many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when
there
>>> are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have
a
>>> collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy
price
in
>>> performance.
>>>
>>> Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in
any
wifi
>>> type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be
polling
as
>>> long as we can keep things that way.
>>>
>>> These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for
reliability
>>> and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10
to
20%
>>> out of a product is less important to me than having a product
that
can
>>> survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors
play.
>>>
>>> However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design
a
>>> network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap
locations)
>>> isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to
be
the
>>> type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer
either
>>> gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs
where
I
>>> looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for
site
>>> locations. Only to have them pick something completely
different,
and
>>> sometimes unworkable.
>>>
>>> 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self
inflicted.
>>> Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner.
>>>
>>> Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both
ways.
Give
>>> it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of
token
ring.
>>> Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we
find
>>> ourselves in.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS
II
>>> line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now?
>>>
>>> Hope you guys all had a great Christmas!
>>> Marlon
>>> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
>>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
>>> 42846865 (icq) And I run my
own
wisp!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe,
neophyte
>>> never...
>>>
>>> CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially
with
4.0
>>> and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all
stations
>>> can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice
can
>>> release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell.
Also,
in
>>> VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such
as
>>> contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more
>>> sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient.
>>>
>>> Patrick Leary
>>> AVP WISP Markets
>>> Alvarion, Inc.
>>> o: 650.314.2628
>>> c: 760.580.0080
>>> Vonage: 650.641.1243
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:13 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>>>
>>> Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain
English
>>> that
>>> a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak
product?
>>> Marlon
>>> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
>>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
>>> 42846865 (icq) And I run my
own
wisp!
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
>>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:54 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
>>>
>>>
>>> Marlon, I'll answer this with a re-post of a September post that
>>> explains, in part, why VL is not just regular CSMA:
>>>
>>> <<trim>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>
>>> 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(190).
>>>
************************************************************************
>>> ************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
************************************************************************
>>> ************
>>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned
by
>>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals
&
>>> computer viruses(42).
>>>
************************************************************************
>>> ************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
************************************************************************
************
>>> 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: [email protected]
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
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(190).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************
************
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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
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(190).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************************
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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
