I'll pass. I have enough mind altering substances called children and a wife. Not euphoric by any means but one can't have everything.
-----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Maurand Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality something about salvia leaves. some sort of euphoric mind altering substance. --C Robert West wrote: > I'm not looking. I will assume the site promotes super efficient heating > devices. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Curtis Maurand > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > yes. > > Registration Service Provided By: ABOVE.COM, INC. > Contact: +613.95897946 > > Domain Name: SUPERHOTSTUFF.COM > > Registrant: > Above.com Domain Privacy > 8 East concourse > Beaumaris > VIC > 3193 > AU > hostmas...@above.com > Tel. +61.395897946 > Fax. > > > Robert West wrote: > >> Was a joke. But some who need porn in the morning...... that's just >> > weird. > >> But again, who am I to judge?! >> >> (Is there really a superhotstoffhere.com????) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:48 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> >> Some of us don't need porn every morning and those that do won't admit nor >> complain about it. Saves us bandwidth. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however >> improbable, must be the truth." >> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Robert West >> <robert.w...@just-micro.com>wrote: >> >> >> >>> Why do you put superhotstuffhere.com as 8? Some of us count on that >>> > every > >>> morning. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:26 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>> >>> Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not >>> destination. >>> >>> All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1 >>> >>> All DNS priority 2 >>> >>> All HTTP priority 4 >>> >>> etc... >>> >>> WE DO NOT want >>> >>> cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1 >>> >>> google.com yahoo.com priority 2 >>> >>> whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8 >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however >>> improbable, must be the truth." >>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be >>>> modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit >>>> outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block >>>> illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent >>>> (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU >>>> licensed open source)? There lies the big question. >>>> >>>> I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN >>>> (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I >>>> still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. >>>> IMHO >>>> >>>> --Curtis >>>> >>>> >>>> Jerry Richardson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I can't agree more. >>>>> >>>>> "Blocking" (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can >>>>> >>>>> >>> no >>> >>> >>>> longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it >>>> all. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an >>>>> >>>>> >>> ISP >>> >>> >>>> is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that >>>> fight in court every time. >>>> >>>> >>>>> We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, >>>>> >>>>> >>> pay >>> >>> >>>> less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has >>>> >>>> >>> hampered >>> >>> >>>> growth. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is >>>>> >>>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>> determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each >>>> >>>> >> service >> >> >>>> tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay >>>> >>>> >>> less >>> >>> >>>> and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to >>>> >>>> >>> survive >>> >>> >>>> and be fair. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jerry Richardson >>>>> airCloud Communications. >>>>> >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>>> >>>>> >>> On >>> >>> >>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or >>>> >>>> >>> unlimited >>> >>> >>>> amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the >>>> financial well-being of the ISP. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and >>>>> >>>>> >>> 2) >>> >>> >>>> Content. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to >>>> >>>> >>> deliver >>> >>> >>>> more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer >>>> >>>> >> contracted >> >> >>>> for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for >>>> >>>> >>> 256 >>> >>> >>>> k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie >>>> >>>> >> doesn't >> >> >>>> stream smoothly. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. >>>>> >>>>> >>> There >>> >>> >>>> area two (or perhaps more) sides of "free speech". >>>> >>>> >>>>> 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the >>>>> >>>>> >>> side >>> >>> >>>> that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is >>>> >>>> >> vital. >> >> >>>> When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep >>>> Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the >>>> Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the >>>> right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that >>>> >>>> >>> oppose >>> >>> >>>> the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I >>>> >>>> >>> don't >>> >>> >>>> want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from >>>> organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is >>>> >>>> >>> what >>> >>> >>>> I mean by protecting and preserving the right to "free speech". >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized >>>>> >>>>> >>> (possibly >>> >>> >>>> an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network >>>> Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of >>>> >>>> >>> "free >>> >>> >>>> speech". All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for >>>> >>>> >>> example >>> >>> >>>> <"Service and Content Provider A" is blocking the services of "Content >>>> Provider B">. To me, this is a "Restraint of Trade" issue rather than a >>>> political "Free Speech" issue but it still falls under the heading of >>>> "Content" and is therefore addressed by NN. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Should NN address the commercial side of "Content"?? Yes, I think it's >>>>> >>>>> >>>> appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be >>>> >>>> >>> allowed >>> >>> >>>> to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content provider >>>> >>>> >>> who >>> >>> >>>> is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every service provider >>>> >>>> >>> should >>> >>> >>>> be required to carry the content of every other content or service >>>> >>>> >>> provider >>> >>> >>>> equally, without restriction AS LONG AS THE CONTRACTED BANDWIDTH LIMITS >>>> >>>> >>> ARE >>> >>> >>>> NOT EXCEEDED. If I contract for 256k of bandwidth do I have a right to >>>> >>>> >>> ask >>> >>> >>>> my ISP to stream HDTV movies to me without delay? No, I do NOT because I >>>> >>>> >>> am >>> >>> >>>> asking to consume more bandwidth then I have contracted to pay for and >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> ISP must slow my stream down to be able to manage their total bandwidth >>>> >>>> >>> so >>> >>> >>>> they can deliver the contracted amount of bandwidth to all their >>>> >>>> >>> customers. >>> >>> >>>> This is "reasonable network management" and it's perfectly proper. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I felt that it was necessary >>>>> >>>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>> distinguish between the political "Free Speech" Content issue and the >>>> "Commercial" Content issue. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Because I don't claim to be an expert on Net Neutrality, I'm open to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> hearing constructive and thoughtful comments from others who can help me >>>> further refine my current opinions. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Again, thanks for your post. >>>>> >>>>> jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Vogel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jack, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much >>>>> >>>>> addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. >>>>> >>>>> I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are >>>>> >>>>> reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned >>>>> >>>>> >> that >> >> >>>>> free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's >>>>> >>>>> upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think >>>>> >>>>> free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the >>>>> >>>>> >>> ISPs, >>> >>> >>>>> nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some >>>>> >>>>> argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I >>>>> >>>>> think the issues have been conflated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the >>>>> >>>>> News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free >>>>> >>>>> >>> speech >>> >>> >>>>> issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable >>>>> >>>>> companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, >>>>> >>>>> >>> etc. >>> >>> >>>>> are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are >>>>> >>>>> >> there >> >> >>>>> any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) >>>>> >>>>> >>> But.. >>> >>> >>>>> P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes >>>>> >>>>> presented as such. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not >>>>> >>>>> inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN >>>>> >>>>> >> APPLICATIONS" >> >> >>>>> (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional >>>>> >>>>> guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is >>>>> >>>>> >> charged >> >> >>>>> with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional >>>>> >>>>> right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or >>>>> >>>>> >> direction >> >> >>>>> you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. >>>>> >>>>> Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate >>>>> >>>>> IMNSHO. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be >>>>> >>>>> similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio >>>>> >>>>> 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" >>>>> >>>>> >>> by >>> >>> >>>>> Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download >>>>> >>>>> >> the >> >> >>>>> HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made >>>>> >>>>> >>> since >>> >>> >>>>> then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC >>>>> >>>>> decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that >>>>> >>>>> >> I >> >> >>>>> cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it >>>>> >>>>> uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of >>>>> >>>>> free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to >>>>> >>>>> consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an >>>>> >>>>> advantage over other users of the network in file download times. >>>>> >>>>> >>> Again, >>> >>> >>>>> not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed >>>>> >>>>> >> at >> >> >>>>> you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it >>>>> >>>>> >>>> AFAICT. >>>> >>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> Jack Unger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have >>>>> >>>>> conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue >>>>> >>>>> of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing >>>>> >>>>> bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they >>>>> >>>>> contract for and not any more than what they contract for. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the >>>>> >>>>> "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they >>>>> >>>>> won't pass. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need >>>>> >>>>> to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or >>>>> >>>>> you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or >>>>> >>>>> receive it from. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Vogel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who >>>>> >>>>> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. >>>>> >>>>> >> If >> >> >>>>> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, >>>>> >>>>> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high >>>>> >>>>> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as >>>>> >>>>> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their >>>>> >>>>> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have >>>>> >>>>> >>> done >>> >>> >>>>> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type >>>>> >>>>> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been >>>>> >>>>> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of >>>>> >>>>> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, >>>>> >>>>> >> I >> >> >>>>> reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to >>>>> >>>>> converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything >>>>> >>>>> they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, >>>>> >>>>> (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding >>>>> >>>>> >> that, >> >> >>>>> and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are >>>>> >>>>> communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free >>>>> >>>>> >> speech, >> >> >>>>> arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via >>>>> >>>>> >>> smoke >>> >>> >>>>> signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their >>>>> >>>>> >> free >> >> >>>>> speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to >>>>> >>>>> >> communicate >> >> >>>>> is somewhat disingenuous. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them >>>>> >>>>> under the banner of free speech does not address both issues >>>>> >>>>> >>> adequately. >>> >>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jack Unger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any >>>>> >>>>> Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want >>>>> >>>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>>> say. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, >>>>> >>>>> >>> as >>> >>> >>>>> most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just >>>>> >>>>> one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to >>>>> >>>>> another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and >>>>> >>>>> shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are >>>>> >>>>> >>> you >>> >>> >>>>> going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL >>>>> >>>>> ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I >>>>> >>>>> don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free >>>>> >>>>> Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet >>>>> >>>>> service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are >>>>> >>>>> saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my >>>>> >>>>> freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free >>>>> >>>>> Speech right now!!!". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hammett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling >>>>> >>>>> >> me >> >> >>>> what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP >>>> >>>> >> C, >> >> >>> or >>> >>> >>>> start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> first place. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>> >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Jack Unger >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to >>>>> >>>>> >> write >> >> >>>> the laws and make the rules. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your >>>>> >>>>> >>>> carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because >>>> >>>> >>> they >>> >>> >>>> didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or >>>> >>>> >>> post >>> >>> >>>> to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse >>>>> >>>>> >> to >> >> >>>> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your >>>> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to >>>> >>>> >>> like >>> >>> >>>> about that? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Who's definition of unreasonable... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger <jun...@ask-wi.com><mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. >>>>> >>>>> Reasonable network management policies are allowed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert West wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral >>>>> >>>>> >>> broadband >>> >>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >>>>> >>>>> explained how it's net neutral. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>>> >>>> >>>>> Behalf Of Blair Davis >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's back.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>>> >>>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>>> >>>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto: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<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>>> >>>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>>> >>>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto: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<mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>> >>>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>>> >>>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>>> >>>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>>> 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/
