Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBCchief

[Dana Spiegel]

Nope.

UCE is already being sent by a large number of ISP subscribers who's  
computers have been turned into spam zombies. Even if you _chose_ to  
do this, you would be required to follow the law on this. Even if you  
were following the law completely, the ISP might have legitimate  
reason to prevent you from being a spammer due to the fact that the  
volume of your network and services use is damaging both their  
network service and the experience of other subscribers. If you were  
sending out a trickle (hundreds/thousands of emails per hour) such  
that you weren't damaging the resources of the ISP, and you were  
following both the law and common sense such that the ISP doesn't  
receive complaints, then the ISP has no reasonable reason for  
preventing you from doing what you are doing.


In the case of the porn website, you also have to follow the law on  
this one. There's copyright for one, and requirements that you  
protect minors from accessing such a service. If your porn site were  
so popular that it received significant traffic, then the ISP might  
again consider that you are damaging their service and the service of  
their other customers.


Regardless, neither of these instances are even close to what SBC is  
suggesting they want to do. Nor are they anything but extreme fringe  
cases for the concept of Network Neutrality. And even then, Network  
Neutrality is the concept that no general carrier of internet packets  
has the right to filter, limit, or inspect the packets that cross  
their networks based on the content or origin of those packets.


Besides, I pay for my internet connection. Some of that money goes  
towards peering agreements Covad has with other big ISPs, and pays  
for transport over large backbone providers as well. Google pays for  
their network connectivity (I'm sure they buy in bulk!), which  
similarly trickles down the network provider chain to reimburse all  
of the networks for transport already.


So, who the hell is SBC to say that just because they own a  
significant chunk of the pipeline, they get to charge more for their  
transport? And on both sides, no less?


Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote:

No. It's all dependent on the providers terms of service, which  
defines what
you are buying and paying for. You have the option of not buying if  
you
don't agree.  For example, suppose I want to buy an internet  
connection to
send unsolicited commercial email in mass mailings to millions of  
people? Do
you think that will be tolerated for long?  Suppose I wish to host  
a porn
web site on my connection? In each of these cases I will be in  
violation of

most providers' TOS.
Jim


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Christopher Mc Carthy
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:51 AM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read
this from the SBCchief


Or put another way - what if the cable company has their own
search page
- but you want to use Google.  Should you have to pay to use that?

Or your favourite news site?

I always thought you were paying for a  connection to the
net, and for a certain amount of bandwidth capacity.  What
you do with it (surfing,
VoIP) is up to you isn't it?

Christopher MC CARTHY
Technical Communicator
CertEx
GL TRADE Headquarters
42 Rue Notre Dame des Victoires
F-75002 Paris
+33 1 53 40 00 00 (switchboard)
+33 1 53 40 01 16 (direct line)
www.gltrade.com

-Original Message-
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:38:40 -0500
From: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from
the SBC chief
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=US-ASCII;   delsp=yes;
format=flowed

Jim,

What makes VoIP so special?

Certainly, if SBC provides VoIP, they should make an attractive
package for their customers. But in the end, their subscribers are
just buying bandwidth in bulk month over month. What gives SBC the
right to treat one IP based service in particular as special?
Its all
just IP packets. And what gives SBC the right to inspect these
packets at their discretion?

This would be like your bank or credit card company inquiring about
what you are purchasing with your money, and furthermore telling you
that you can't purchase other financial services with your money
because they already provide them.

What if you want to use a VoIP provider that emails you your
voicemails, while SBC makes you dial in via your home phone only to
get them? Shouldn't you have the right to choose what service you
want to use?

Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917

RE: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBCchief

[Jim Henry]

No. It's all dependent on the providers terms of service, which defines what
you are buying and paying for. You have the option of not buying if you
don't agree.  For example, suppose I want to buy an internet connection to
send unsolicited commercial email in mass mailings to millions of people? Do
you think that will be tolerated for long?  Suppose I wish to host a porn
web site on my connection? In each of these cases I will be in violation of
most providers' TOS.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Christopher Mc Carthy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from the SBCchief
> 
> 
> Or put another way - what if the cable company has their own 
> search page
> - but you want to use Google.  Should you have to pay to use that?
> 
> Or your favourite news site?  
> 
> I always thought you were paying for a  connection to the 
> net, and for a certain amount of bandwidth capacity.  What 
> you do with it (surfing,
> VoIP) is up to you isn't it?
> 
> Christopher MC CARTHY
> Technical Communicator
> CertEx
> GL TRADE Headquarters
> 42 Rue Notre Dame des Victoires
> F-75002 Paris
> +33 1 53 40 00 00 (switchboard)
> +33 1 53 40 01 16 (direct line)
> www.gltrade.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:38:40 -0500
> From: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from
>   the SBC chief
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;   delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
> 
> Jim,
> 
> What makes VoIP so special?
> 
> Certainly, if SBC provides VoIP, they should make an attractive  
> package for their customers. But in the end, their subscribers are  
> just buying bandwidth in bulk month over month. What gives SBC the  
> right to treat one IP based service in particular as special? 
> Its all  
> just IP packets. And what gives SBC the right to inspect these  
> packets at their discretion?
> 
> This would be like your bank or credit card company inquiring about  
> what you are purchasing with your money, and furthermore telling you  
> that you can't purchase other financial services with your money  
> because they already provide them.
> 
> What if you want to use a VoIP provider that emails you your  
> voicemails, while SBC makes you dial in via your home phone only to  
> get them? Shouldn't you have the right to choose what service you  
> want to use?
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > I can certainly agreee with  not allowing other voip providers to
> > traverse
> > your network at no charge, especially if your company provides voice
> > services. To a lesser extent I can agree with restricting anything  
> > you wish
> > as long as you put it in your Terms of Service ahead of time.  
> > However, I
> > don't think the latter strategy will survive in a free 
> market. If this
> > fellow actually said he wants to charge for every web page view  
> > that travels
> > SBC's network then I think he is being irrational and will not  
> > succeed at
> > it.
> > Jim
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:43 AM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Cc: 'Dustin Goodwin'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from 
> >> the SBC chief
> >>
> >>
> >> We should be clear about this.
> >>
> >> What Mr. Witacre is intending is not just to charge you 
> and me (which
> >> he already does), but to charge each and every single company that
> >> provides us a web page.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I think he's smoking something. In addition to being 
> >> impossible to manage such a scheme from a contract and 
> payment point 
> >> of view, the only way to maintain it is to collude with the other 
> >> backbone providers.
> >>
> >> This is not to say he won't try, nor that we aren't moving 
> >> dangerously close to monopoly power with broadband--both cable/dsl 
> >> and backbone (we have been racing towards this for some time now).
> >>
> >> What Dustin is suggesting is to head this off at the pass. 
> Instead of
> >> just ignoring this lunatic (Mr. Witacre), we should use this as a
> >> rallying cry to ensure that the foundations of the
> >> Internet--and this
> >> _is_ about SBC trying to change the fundamental operations of the
> >> Internet--remain uncorrupted by corporate greed and monopolistic
> >> practices.
> >>
> >> Dana Spiegel
> >> Executive Director
> >> NYCwireless
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>

[nycwireless] NYCw Broadband Network Neutrality UPDATE

[Dustin Goodwin]

Breaking news! Stop the presses...
The first ISP has accepted our Broadband Network Neutrality challenge. Many thanks to the visionaries over at bway.net. ISPs like bway.net that have publicly embraced the 4 principles of Network Neutrality should be your first choice when purchasing broadband services. 


We are asking all broadband providers in NYC to make public statement about the 
following Network Neutrality principles.
*(1)* consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content 
 of their choice;
*(2)* consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
  choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
;
*(3)* consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices 
 that do not harm the
  network; and
*(4)* consumers are entitled to competition among network providers 
, application and service
  providers, and content providers.

Broadband Challenge details: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallange
Scorecard: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard

To participate or to give me info on ISP decision makers - email me at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

- Dustin -

-Original Message-
From: Joe Plotkin 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:22 PM

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [nycwireless] NYCwireless Network Neutrality challenge]


Bway.net, the independent ISP, wholeheartedly supports these 4
principles of Network Neutrality. Bway.net allows its customers to
run any application or services they want on their broadband
connections, connect servers or other devices -- and even to share
their bandwidth publicly. Additionally, Bway.net relies on unfettered
access to the public network to provide **innovative services** not
offered by the dominant telco or cable providers including symmetric
DSL, AnonymousDSL (tm) and Naked ADSL.

Bway.net
Joe Plotkin, Director, Marketing

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Christopher Mc Carthy]

Or put another way - what if the cable company has their own search page
- but you want to use Google.  Should you have to pay to use that?

Or your favourite news site?  

I always thought you were paying for a  connection to the net, and for a
certain amount of bandwidth capacity.  What you do with it (surfing,
VoIP) is up to you isn't it?

Christopher MC CARTHY
Technical Communicator
CertEx
GL TRADE Headquarters
42 Rue Notre Dame des Victoires
F-75002 Paris
+33 1 53 40 00 00 (switchboard)
+33 1 53 40 01 16 (direct line)
www.gltrade.com

-Original Message-
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:38:40 -0500
From: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from
the SBC chief
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=US-ASCII;   delsp=yes;
format=flowed

Jim,

What makes VoIP so special?

Certainly, if SBC provides VoIP, they should make an attractive  
package for their customers. But in the end, their subscribers are  
just buying bandwidth in bulk month over month. What gives SBC the  
right to treat one IP based service in particular as special? Its all  
just IP packets. And what gives SBC the right to inspect these  
packets at their discretion?

This would be like your bank or credit card company inquiring about  
what you are purchasing with your money, and furthermore telling you  
that you can't purchase other financial services with your money  
because they already provide them.

What if you want to use a VoIP provider that emails you your  
voicemails, while SBC makes you dial in via your home phone only to  
get them? Shouldn't you have the right to choose what service you  
want to use?

Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Jim Henry wrote:

> I can certainly agreee with  not allowing other voip providers to  
> traverse
> your network at no charge, especially if your company provides voice
> services. To a lesser extent I can agree with restricting anything  
> you wish
> as long as you put it in your Terms of Service ahead of time.  
> However, I
> don't think the latter strategy will survive in a free market. If this
> fellow actually said he wants to charge for every web page view  
> that travels
> SBC's network then I think he is being irrational and will not  
> succeed at
> it.
> Jim
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:43 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: 'Dustin Goodwin'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
>> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read
>> this from the SBC chief
>>
>>
>> We should be clear about this.
>>
>> What Mr. Witacre is intending is not just to charge you and
>> me (which
>> he already does), but to charge each and every single company that
>> provides us a web page.
>>
>> Frankly, I think he's smoking something. In addition to being
>> impossible to manage such a scheme from a contract and payment point
>> of view, the only way to maintain it is to collude with the other
>> backbone providers.
>>
>> This is not to say he won't try, nor that we aren't moving
>> dangerously close to monopoly power with broadband--both cable/dsl
>> and backbone (we have been racing towards this for some time now).
>>
>> What Dustin is suggesting is to head this off at the pass.
>> Instead of
>> just ignoring this lunatic (Mr. Witacre), we should use this as a
>> rallying cry to ensure that the foundations of the
>> Internet--and this
>> _is_ about SBC trying to change the fundamental operations of the
>> Internet--remain uncorrupted by corporate greed and monopolistic
>> practices.
>>
>> Dana Spiegel
>> Executive Director
>> NYCwireless
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> www.NYCwireless.net
>> +1 917 402 0422
>>
>> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info



This email communication is confidential and is intended solely for whom it is 
addressed. Copying, or re-using in any way by anyone else is unauthorised. Any 
views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of GL TRADE or any of its affiliates. 

If you have received this mail in error, please destroy the copy in your 
possession and notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]


This email communication is confidential and is intended solely for whom it is 
addressed. Copying, or re-using in any way by anyone else is unauthorised. Any 
views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of GL TRADE or any of its affiliates. 

If you have received this mail in error, please destroy the copy in your 
possession and notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman

Re: [nycwireless] Old TWC Cease & Desist letters?

[Dustin Goodwin]

I think TWC once believed there was a threat to their business model 
from shared Wifi. After wasting a bunch of money I believe they realized 
there was no risk and gave it up.


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Re: Old TWC Cease & Desist letters?

I'm new to the board, but haven't found much information about the reasons behind TWC/RR and other large incumbents' prohibition on connection sharing.  


Whether right or wrong, I'm curious to know if anyone has specifically spoken 
with these companies and found out their rationale for prohibiting connection 
sharing.  If it were simply an issue of not wanting to support free-loaders, 
why have they not created a captive-portal/authentication scheme?

Especially in light of Verizon starting to distribute WiFi devices with DSL, 
this issue makes even less sense.

If anyone has an idea, please let me know.  If not, does anyone have any 
contact information of people at TWC who may have been somewhat helpful?  
Clearing up this issue might help us move the community wireless into a larger 
number of homes and allow us to grow the network.

Thanks
Steven
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Dana Spiegel]

Jim,

What makes VoIP so special?

Certainly, if SBC provides VoIP, they should make an attractive  
package for their customers. But in the end, their subscribers are  
just buying bandwidth in bulk month over month. What gives SBC the  
right to treat one IP based service in particular as special? Its all  
just IP packets. And what gives SBC the right to inspect these  
packets at their discretion?


This would be like your bank or credit card company inquiring about  
what you are purchasing with your money, and furthermore telling you  
that you can't purchase other financial services with your money  
because they already provide them.


What if you want to use a VoIP provider that emails you your  
voicemails, while SBC makes you dial in via your home phone only to  
get them? Shouldn't you have the right to choose what service you  
want to use?


Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Jim Henry wrote:

I can certainly agreee with  not allowing other voip providers to  
traverse

your network at no charge, especially if your company provides voice
services. To a lesser extent I can agree with restricting anything  
you wish
as long as you put it in your Terms of Service ahead of time.  
However, I

don't think the latter strategy will survive in a free market. If this
fellow actually said he wants to charge for every web page view  
that travels
SBC's network then I think he is being irrational and will not  
succeed at

it.
Jim


-Original Message-
From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Dustin Goodwin'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read
this from the SBC chief


We should be clear about this.

What Mr. Witacre is intending is not just to charge you and
me (which
he already does), but to charge each and every single company that
provides us a web page.

Frankly, I think he's smoking something. In addition to being
impossible to manage such a scheme from a contract and payment point
of view, the only way to maintain it is to collude with the other
backbone providers.

This is not to say he won't try, nor that we aren't moving
dangerously close to monopoly power with broadband--both cable/dsl
and backbone (we have been racing towards this for some time now).

What Dustin is suggesting is to head this off at the pass.
Instead of
just ignoring this lunatic (Mr. Witacre), we should use this as a
rallying cry to ensure that the foundations of the
Internet--and this
_is_ about SBC trying to change the fundamental operations of the
Internet--remain uncorrupted by corporate greed and monopolistic
practices.

Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Jim Henry wrote:


Well, me too, but I'm willing to pay for something better than AOL.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dustin Goodwin
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read

this from

the SBC chief


Just go ahead and turn the Internet off if you can only

connect me to

the AOLized version of it.

- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


You can't argue with that. They invest hundreds of millions

of dollars

in transport and need to get their ROI.




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dustin Goodwin
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:40 PM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read

this from the

SBC chief


Please never tell me again there is no need for an

alternative to

the Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /

"If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back
, SBC

CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview

with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage

and other

Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style:

'How do you

think they're going to get to customers? Through a

broadband pipe.

Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like
to do is use
my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that

because we have

spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.

So there's

going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these
pipes to pay
for the portion they're using. Why should they be

allowed to use my

pipes?'."

- Dustin -

/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe:
http://lists.nycwirel

[nycwireless] Re: High Powered APs for less

[William Estrada]

Adam,

 Congrates on your ticket.

 I can't say this enough, go for better antenna rather than busting the 
power on your radio!
The more power you run the more power your neighbors will think they 
need.  If you want to
go south, then install a BBQ grill antenna points that way.  You can 
install a wrt54g and

the antenna for less that $120.  And less if you make the antenna yourself.

 The more interference that is generated, the more the FCC will get 
involved!  You don't
want that.  I have a wireless network set up using all of the shelf 
equipment.  The topology
contains a 2 mile and a 400 foot wireless bridge links.  Plus a 15 mile 
run that is in test
status right now.  I use WRT54Gs and WAP54Gs.  Go to my web site for 
more info.


ps. You can use 802.11a for long runs, the power limit there is 4W.  The 
antennas costs

the same.  The radios are a little more than 2.4ghz.



Message: 2
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:00:00 -0500
From: "Adam Vazquez Kb2jpd " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [nycwireless] Re: High Powered APs for less
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net,
nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

Hello from Adam Kb2jpd.

It is getting cold again. If anyone notices that strange thing after my name, 
it is my callsign for Amateur Radio issued by the FCC. Why mention it? Because 
about this time, we hams took the time out until the end of Indian summer to 
put all the necessary aerials before it gets too cold to work out in the winter 
weather.

My question to the list:

I noticed in the latest 'Wired' magazine that there is a new wireless router 
rated at 1 watt of power. Www.bountifulrouter.com. Their price is about $625.

Anyone seen anything done for cheaper? I has several access points here but I 
would not mind putting one up I can hit further from the domcile.

Adam


 



--
 William Estrada 
--  
MrUmunhum at popdial dot com   --   
408-997-0743

 Ymessenger ID: MrUmunhum
 HTTP://Mt-Umunhum-Wireless.net

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/