I didn't write the book. I read it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
> Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty. > > Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible > links, > cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still > maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology. > Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same > number > of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum > becomes > available. > > It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider > to > eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason > that > any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient > radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything > else, is spectrum hording. Any new applicant should also have the right > to > pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange > to > free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link. > > Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to > pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a > better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... > > >> The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is >> generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part >> 90 >> and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back >> before >> microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game >> there. >> It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% >> availability using the old AT&T long haul spec. With the new digital >> radios >> with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >> today... >> >> >>>I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck >>> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed >>> link, >>> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole >>> bunch >>> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit >>> in >>> 30 >>> MHz, end of story. >>> >>> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, >>> but >>> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for >>> a >>> few years. >>> >>> >>> ---------- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>> today... >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? >>>> >>>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum >>>> due >>>> to >>>> the barrier to entry. >>>> >>>>> Telco's (like Chuck) use >>>>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to >>>>> support >>>>> the >>>>> dishes. >>>> >>>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build >>>> towers, >>>> its >>>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of >>>> whether its approved. >>>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get >>>> the >>>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs. >>>> >>>>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, >>>> that >>>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" >>>> the >>>> actual towers. >>>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an >>>> antenna approval. >>>> >>>>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller >>>>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the >>>>> larger >>>>> dishes... >>>> >>>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a >>>> 4ft >>>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license. >>>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT >>>> meet >>>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a >>>> "secondary basis". >>>> . >>>>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a >>>>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing >>>>> the >>>>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the >>>>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. >>>> >>>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all >>>> 5.x >>>> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so >>>> spectrum >>>> is not wasted? >>>> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? >>>> >>>>>>From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed >>>>>>to >>>>>>do >>>>>>a >>>>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended >>>>> up >>>>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. >>>> >>>> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is >>>> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free >>>> spectrum, >>>> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. >>>> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where >>>> near >>>> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, >>>> lower >>>> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP >>>> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I >>>> argue >>>> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. >>>> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in >>>> place. >>>> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it >>>> was >>>> promised when it was licesned to the licensee. >>>> But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a >>>> smaller >>>> antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum. >>>> >>>> I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft >>>> dishes. >>>> 4ft >>>> dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum >>>> preservation conscious. >>>> There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft >>>> versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within >>>> the >>>> grasp of many many needy WISPs. >>>> >>>> What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP >>>> Whitespace >>>> spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or >>>> Shrinking >>>> the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree >>>> beamwidth? >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi >>>> >>>>> Daniel White >>>>> 3-dB Networks >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> On >>>>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>> today... >>>>> >>>>> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation..... >>>>> >>>>> Why is that? >>>>> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft >>>>> antennas.allowed. >>>>> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I >>>>> do >>>>> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not >>>>> translating to larger deployment. >>>>> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft >>>>> dishes. >>>>> >>>>> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft >>>>> antennas? >>>>> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? >>>>> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? >>>>> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller >>>>> antenna >>>>> >>>>> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger >>>>> size >>>>> antenna? >>>>> >>>>> The fact is.... 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused >>>>> spectrum >>>>> >>>>> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one >>>>> tower >>>>> or >>>>> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft >>>>> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. >>>>> >>>>> Tom DeReggi >>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>> today... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with >>>>>> 6GHz >>>>>> that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz >>>>>> freq >>>>>> pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely >>>>>> mean >>>>>> even >>>>>> fewer available freq pairs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Brad >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM >>>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>>> today... >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller >>>>>> antennas >>>>>> to >>>>>> be allowed on 6Ghz. >>>>>> Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. >>>>>> >>>>>> The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument >>>>>> doesn;t >>>>>> hold >>>>>> for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom DeReggi >>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>>> today... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't >>>>>>>there >>>>>>> already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> quite some range to them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM >>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>>>> today... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Butch, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then, the "music" turned to "noise".... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable >>>>>>>> instead, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> said, "but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> very important part of broadband delivery".. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> FCC >>>>>>>> committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. >>>>>>>> Atleast, >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> know where we stand now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still >>>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> fix, >>>>>>>> if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic >>>>>>>> wand >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> change "100mw" to "4w" (at least for non-adjacent channels), and >>>>>>>> it'll >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> survive without adequate power. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tom DeReggi >>>>>>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> To: "Wispa List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>> Cc: "WISPA Members List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>>>>>>> today... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our >>>>>>>>> industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but >>>>>>>>> in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were >>>>>>>>> "music to my ears". Then, the "music" turned to "noise".... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our >>>>>>>>> broadband future." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can't agree more. He also said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Today?s decision is consequential to our nation?s future because >>>>>>>>> wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and >>>>>>>>> quality of life in even the remotest areas." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY "get it". >>>>>>>>> Then, >>>>>>>>> he went on to say this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing >>>>>>>>> the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order >>>>>>>>> provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to >>>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>>> an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this >>>>>>>>> under-used >>>>>>>>> spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that >>>>>>>>> already make valuable use of the spectrum." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHAT? The "most promise"? I'm not horribly disappointed about >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that >>>>>>>>> unlicensed at 100mW is going to "maximize the use" of anything? >>>>>>>>> Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but >>>>>>>>> these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful >>>>>>>>> spectrum that the WISPA suggested "licensed lite" approach could >>>>>>>>> have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since >>>>>>>>> most of it was not something I am very positive about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and >>>>>>>>> nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties >>>>>>>>> (that's >>>>>>>>> you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news >>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get >>>>>>>>> geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also >>>>>>>>> got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only >>>>>>>>> real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is >>>>>>>>> because they chose unlicensed over license lite. Our FCC >>>>>>>>> committee >>>>>>>>> worked very hard to get us to this point. I don't think any of us >>>>>>>>> realize how much time Jack Unger and Steve Coran put into this >>>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>>> on our behalf over the past 2-3 weeks. If you have not personally >>>>>>>>> thanked them, you really should take a minute to do so. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My personal take on this is that they wanted to do "something" but >>>>>>>>> not too much. I think I sense a "new battleground" forming when >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> new commission takes over next year. It is for this reason, that >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> urge ALL OF YOU (me, too) to do 3 things over the next few months: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. If you are not already, become a WISPA member. We would not be >>>>>>>>> at this point without your financial support. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. If you have not already done so, become familiar with WHY the >>>>>>>>> TVWS are (or will be) beneficial to you and your network. This >>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>> prepare you for the upcoming fight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Join the debates which are sure to come over the next few weeks >>>>>>>>> to help WISPA prepare to continue the fight for this most valuable >>>>>>>>> of spectrums for our cause. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>>>>> * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* >>>>>>>>> * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * >>>>>>>>> * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * >>>>>>>>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * >>>>>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
