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/
