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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <wireless@wispa.org>
 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
   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" <wireless@wispa.org>
   > 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
   >> 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
   >>> 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
   >>> 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: 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(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: 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/

-- 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(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: 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(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: 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/

Reply via email to