Matt, Are you finding that the low noise floor (free spectrum) enabling high modulations are getting you the more CPE per sector, or are you finding that the WiMax protocol is delivering better results than other proprietary TDD based systems of equivellent modulations?
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP > The economics is simple with WiMAX. Either high revenue customers or > lots of customers. If you don't have the volume or the revenue there > are plenty of other cost effective solutions. > > -Matt > > On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> I've been seeing WiMAX CPE for $500 - $1000 in lower quantities. I >> currently spend $150 per CPE. I could see going up to $200 or $250, >> but not >> any higher in 5 or less quantities. >> >> >> ---------- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >> >> >>> The WiMAX vendors are focused on the cost of the CPE; not the sector. >>> CPE can be had for anywhere between $200 and $500 currently depending >>> on vendor and volume. Vendors are working to get that price down with >>> a 12 month target of being under $100. The oversubscription you can >>> do >>> on a WiMAX sector is simply beyond anything else currently available >>> on the market. We are used to operating a fixed wireless business >>> with >>> no oversubscription, which allowed us to successfully target high >>> revenue dedicated voice and data customers. Keeping the same business >>> model we have found it possible to put as many as 30 CPE on a single >>> 7Mhz sector. This allows us to save upwards of 37% on CAPEX and drop >>> our installation intervals by 50%. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> On Jul 3, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >>> >>>> Its irrelevent how long the equipment will last, if the company that >>>> deploys >>>> it does not last. >>>> Its all about cash flow and healthy financials, not spec sheets. >>>> >>>> 10k-15k a sector is Huge. >>>> >>>> I hope these manufacturers, make it affordable, before the market is >>>> over. >>>> >>>>> how much more do you >>>>> think you will get if you have Cisco instead of Mikrotik? >>>> >>>> Good point, no dispute on resale value. But, its interesting to note >>>> that >>>> Cisco has a huge secondary (used) resale market. I wonder why that >>>> is? >>>> I can't remember the last time I saw a used Mikrotik for sale. >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi >>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "David Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:10 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are cheaper options than 10k per sector but you are correct >>>>> that's >>>>> about the going rate between 10 and 15k per sector. However, this >>>>> equipment >>>>> is not anywhere near the same as the "tinker toys" as Scriv puts >>>>> it. This >>>>> equipment will last you much longer than the commodity equipment. >>>>> It's >>>>> easily twice as spectrally efficient and allows for a much easier >>>>> deployment. A number of WISPS are moving to this platform as they >>>>> find >>>>> that >>>>> the higher end equipment is worth more on a buyout. >>>>> >>>>> Lets put it this way. If you have a network to sell, how much more >>>>> do you >>>>> think you will get if you have Cisco instead of Mikrotik? Nothing >>>>> against >>>>> them, but the quality of your infrastructure is heavily weighed >>>>> during a >>>>> buyout. If you don't agree, check the many spam's on this and >>>>> other lists >>>>> from the guys buying networks. Some won't even look at you if you >>>>> don't >>>>> have Canopy or better equipment. >>>>> >>>>> David Peterson >>>>> WirelessGuys Inc. >>>>> 805-578-8590 >>>>> >>>>> On 7/2/08 5:33 PM, "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> $10k for a single AP is why. I can outfit two whole towers with >>>>>> MTI >>>>>> sector >>>>>> antennas for the price of 1 WiMAX radio. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gross throughput. My Mikrotik can do 35 megs of throughput vs. 20 >>>>>> (albeit a >>>>>> larger channel). >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to use WiMAX as it is more spectrally efficient (most >>>>>> important >>>>>> advantage in my eyes), but will not do so until vendors go after >>>>>> the >>>>>> masses >>>>>> and not early adopters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:36 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time >>>>>>> writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> the issues involved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our >>>>>>> wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We >>>>>>> will see >>>>>>> which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless >>>>>>> broadband. >>>>>>> We are going to see some movement away from 802.11 based systems >>>>>>> as a >>>>>>> platform for delivery of outdoor broadband in all bands in my >>>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>> I think we will see a move toward licensed WiMax and LTE systems >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> predominantly for wireless broadband delivery as the next few >>>>>>> years >>>>>>> progress. I have little doubt that other platforms will be put to >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> but innovation will not occur from multiple platform distractions >>>>>>> away >>>>>>> from the goal of building efficient, cost effective and unified >>>>>>> systems for outdoor wireless broadband. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think mixing several unrelated technologies into he same >>>>>>> band >>>>>>> is a good idea? I believe that we need to be using ONE platform >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> 3.65 and we need to all support it. Fragmentation of support, >>>>>>> vendors, >>>>>>> operators, etc. does not help our collective efforts. We need to >>>>>>> decide on a platform and all of us need to use it if we are ever >>>>>>> going >>>>>>> to make headway as a group. The rest of the world is building >>>>>>> WiMax in >>>>>>> 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz. I just cannot see why we have to reinvent the >>>>>>> wheel >>>>>>> here. I assure you that if we all built on this platform that we >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> get the regulations changed to allow for WiMax use across the >>>>>>> entire >>>>>>> 50 MHz of this band. With GPS sync and 6 non-overlapping channels >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> could certainly avoid interference and deliver quality wireless >>>>>>> broadband in 3.65 GHz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does our industry standardizing on a platform like WiMax in >>>>>>> 3.65 >>>>>>> GHz stifle innovation? I think it does the opposite. I think it >>>>>>> provides focus and clarity and economies of scale for a platform >>>>>>> designed to provide outdoor wireless broadband. It is our best >>>>>>> shot at >>>>>>> building interconnected networks with scale and an exit strategy >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> operators, many having been running wireless broadband networks >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> over a decade. We are not getting any younger and someday we need >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> have something that someone will want to buy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have given much thought to this. I am sure some will doubt what >>>>>>> I am >>>>>>> saying but I feel very strongly that we need to be setting a >>>>>>> standard >>>>>>> and supporting it as a group. If we cannot mass our buying power >>>>>>> collectively toward a common platform VERY soon then we will not >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> to worry about it much longer because deeper pockets will do it >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By most all accounts Telecoms with DSL and CableCos with DOCSIS >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> flourished by choosing industry standards for their broadband >>>>>>> platforms and using it. They all support these same standards. I >>>>>>> remember the early days of cable modems when there were 50 >>>>>>> proprietary >>>>>>> standards. Innovation came when the cable companies and their >>>>>>> vendors >>>>>>> banded together and built the DOCSIS standard and they all agreed >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> support it. That is innovation, focus, and efficiency. Why can't >>>>>>> we do >>>>>>> the same thing and learn from others who have succeeded? How >>>>>>> can we >>>>>>> achieve economies of scale with several different incompatible >>>>>>> systems? I think we better wise up in 3.65 before we end up >>>>>>> with an >>>>>>> inefficiently used band with little chance of reuse (no GPS >>>>>>> sync in >>>>>>> 802.11x). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of us need to choose a platform which is designed to provide >>>>>>> outdoor broadband efficiently and effectively. WiMax was built to >>>>>>> fill >>>>>>> this need and we need to start supporting it or face diminishing >>>>>>> returns as the billions of dollars from others globally build >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> us. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. The change >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> in the air and you need to be aware of it. The rest of the >>>>>>> world is >>>>>>> building WiMax networks to deliver wireless broadband. How long >>>>>>> do we >>>>>>> need to wait to see that this is not a fad? This is not just >>>>>>> another >>>>>>> option. It is how wireless broadband is going to be delivered in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bands globally. Indeed it is how it is being >>>>>>> done >>>>>>> already. We are just late to the party. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think several non-cooperative systems (some of which are >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> even designed for outdoor wireless) are better than choosing a >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> standard and all of us supporting it? I am not trying to start a >>>>>>> holy >>>>>>> war here or anything. I just want to know why many in this group >>>>>>> seem >>>>>>> to have a preference for 802.11 based systems over systems >>>>>>> designed to >>>>>>> work better in outdoor environments as we have seen with 802.16 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> 802.22, or even other proprietary systems like Canopy for >>>>>>> instance? >>>>>>> What is the love affair with 802.11? I don't get it. It is not >>>>>>> designed for this purpose and yet many here seem to prefer it to >>>>>>> systems built from the ground up to do outdoor broadband >>>>>>> wireless. >>>>>>> What is so bad about picking a good standard and all of us trying >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> support it instead of having 50 different systems all acting as >>>>>>> little >>>>>>> islands of users and support? WISPs better get together and make >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> of this golden opportunity in 3.65 GHz. It is as close to a WISP >>>>>>> band >>>>>>> as we will likely ever get. If we mess this up then we will not >>>>>>> get >>>>>>> another chance. WISPs and WISPA are at a crossroads I think. It >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> time to stop playing with tinkertoys and get out some real tools >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> go to work. >>>>>>> John Scrivner >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Harold Bledsoe >>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is >>>>>>>> tied to >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle >>>>>>>> innovation >>>>>>>> in that band. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Hal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do >>>>>>>> away >>>>>>>> with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. >>>>>>>> Many >>>>>>>> people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz >>>>>>>> bands >>>>>>>> across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band >>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>> 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and >>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>> away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused >>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>> times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes >>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>> for us. It can be a "WISP band" if we do this. Spanking more out >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to >>>>>>>> use a >>>>>>>> real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless >>>>>>>> broadband. >>>>>>>> WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the >>>>>>>> standard in >>>>>>>> the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> use something better than repurposed WiFi. >>>>>>>> Scriv >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the >>>>>>>>> atheros >>>>>>>>> mechanism is just an "energy detection", it will not be >>>>>>>>> allowed. >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> were from the FCC to someone wanting certification. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of >>>>>>>>>> based on >>>>>>>>>> power >>>>>>>>>> level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the >>>>>>>>>> mechanism >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high >>>>>>>>>> energy >>>>>>>>>> level (-62dBm). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although I agree that even -62dBm seems "fair". It would be >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> useful >>>>>>>>>> to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not >>>>>>>>>> work for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> FCC's contention requirement. If it is not the detection >>>>>>>>>> mechanism, >>>>>>>>>> then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Hal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>>>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a >>>>>>>>>> tear and >>>>>>>>>> decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of >>>>>>>>>> nonsense is >>>>>>>>>> about, >>>>>>>>>> but when it declares that 802.11 "does not detect dissimilar >>>>>>>>>> systems", >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> nothing can EVER be made to work. After all, the whole >>>>>>>>>> "listen >>>>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>>>> talk" >>>>>>>>>> is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR. If that doesn't work, nothing >>>>>>>>>> can. Or, >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to >>>>>>>>>> promote >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> "work". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, >>>>>>>>>> but in >>>>>>>>>> reality, >>>>>>>>>> it doesn't matter. I predict NO equipment will be certified >>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>> rest >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some >>>>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>>>> entity. >>>>>>>>>> We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with >>>>>>>>>> statements >>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> "we're watching the development of <insert technology du jour >>>>>>>>>> here> >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> interest". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the >>>>>>>>>>> FCC is >>>>>>>>>>> looking >>>>>>>>>>> for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, Tony Morella >>>>>>>>>>> Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider >>>>>>>>>>> Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.demarctech.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Tony: >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inquiry. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the email you mentioned that several companies have >>>>>>>>>>> obtained >>>>>>>>>>> equipment >>>>>>>>>>> authorization for operation in the lower 25 MHz of the >>>>>>>>>>> 3650-3700 MHz >>>>>>>>>>> band. >>>>>>>>>>> This is correct. In the Commission's evaluation these devices >>>>>>>>>>> met >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> requirements for restricted contention based protocol >>>>>>>>>>> operation. >>>>>>>>>>> Thus >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> of these devices support contention based protocol, but they >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>> that for similar types of systems. They do not provide for >>>>>>>>>>> recognizing >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> coexistence with other dissimilar systems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In order to obtain the authorization for the full 50 MHz >>>>>>>>>>> operation >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> system has to demonstrate coexistence with different >>>>>>>>>>> protocols. At >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> present time the Commission reviews each application on its >>>>>>>>>>> merit to >>>>>>>>>>> determine if the system meets the requirements for such >>>>>>>>>>> unrestricted >>>>>>>>>>> operation. The Commission is monitoring the progress of IEEE >>>>>>>>>>> 802.16h >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> 802.11y working groups in terms of their plans to extend >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> respective >>>>>>>>>>> protocols to support coexistence. We are encouraged by this >>>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> think that they are in the right direction. However, it is >>>>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>>>> precondition for authorization. In the absence of any >>>>>>>>>>> industry >>>>>>>>>>> standard, >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> treat each application on a case-by-case basis. One of the >>>>>>>>>>> tests we >>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>> apply is the co-existence analysis recommendation currently >>>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>> review >>>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>> the 802.19 committee. We would expect to see some simulation >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> show >>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>> the proposed system would behave in the presence of other >>>>>>>>>>> systems, >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> back-off strategies employed and approaches to fair sharing >>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have further questions. >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>> Rashmi Doshi, PhD >>>>>>>>>>> Chief, FCC Laboratory Division" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by One Ring Networks, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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/ >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by One Ring Networks, and is >> believed to be clean. >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
