I think you missed my point. The same problem exists if I use Nano Stations, or Built-in antenna models. I live in a very noisy inconsistent environment. Its uncertain in which installation cases Dual pol MIMO will work, and which cases it will not. It all depends on spectral availabilty. I always guess wrong, and it takes so much longer to tests ahead of time. I'm spoiled by using Trangos the last 10 years, I'll always continue to look for the equivellent in flexibilty.
The core benefit is to be able to standardize on proceedure and equipment selection. I dont want to use A one day, N the next. Use Mikrotik one day, StarOS the next, Ubiquiti the next. Its to hard to keep a million different parts and systems ready to go for every products line. Its hard predicting which products I'll need stocked, and which products will be most needed for opprotunities that arise in the future. Ubiquity has the promise to offer one platform that can do everything. And it seems to work well, so far. Its certainly price right. The fact that some CPEs have built-in antenna pre-hard configured to which polarity is Chain0 makes this a much bigger problem than I thought. That means that CPEs have already selected which POL will reside on Chain0. (Im not sure which it is, so hypothetically I say chain0 is verticle) That means that if Chain0 is Verticle, that my whole network must be standardized on using Verticle pol as the primary 0-7 antenna. What if at 70% of my pre-existing DSSS sectors Verticle pol has to much noise and cant be used, and I am using Horizontal pol now? My goal is to replace slow DSSS gear with Faster OFDM gear where possible. When the Ubiquiti radios are put in place they'd be forced to first operate on the noisy channel, not the clean channel. Possibly even interfereing with my other sectors at teh cell site. My understanding is that the primary chain does not ever disable itself. Just the secondary channel auto adjusts on or off. I'd be at risk at destroying my sector quality if I upgraded gear to Ubiquiti, if I could not select which chain/pol would be the primary to use. When I upgrade my network from DSSS to OFDM, I do not want to do it with 3 different products. I want to upgrade it with one product that I can adapt to best fit into the pre-existing situation. In many cases, MIMO dual pol will work fine, but in other it simply wont. This is also critical for disaster prevention. What happens if someone else deploys on chain0's pol, and kills it? It takes a truck role to fix it, and customers are lost in the mean time. Sure I could switch from N to A on the fly MAYBE, but maybe not if the noise was to loud and I lost remote access to CPEs. Plus it would take to long to convert. But if I could jsut go tell all teh CPEs to switch which chain/pol was primary, the primary could be moved to the clean channel, and hopefully the new deployer will eventually go away, and free the channel back up for my radios. Having radios auto adjust turning teh second antenna on and off is NOT a good thing for High ARPU SLA/Performance. Everytime modulation changes, or a radio looses packets figuring out of a pol/chain is usable above the noise, packet loss occurs and customers can feel it. I need the flexibilt to turn off a chain if something migrates to poor performance, but that does not help unless I can select which chain to disable. It only helps if I can disable the chain that has noise. This could be a huge problem. BUT... the problem would go away, if we could simply select which chain will operate like the primary, and always stay active. Lets look at this a different way... When I first built my network 10 years ago, there was a reason I selected Trango over Alvarion and Canopy. The others only operated on Verticle pol. 70% of my sector environments only had free spectrum on Horizontal. Trango gave me that flexibilty, to select. I dont ever want to loose that. If using MIMO means I have to give up that flexibilty, the whole purpose of Dual pol is lost. The facts are.... The primary polarity will not always be available everywhere. It needs to be selectable. I dont want to send out a tech with three products, and then to do a scan, and then select which product to use. Thats to encumbersome. MAybe, the reason I'm buying Ubiquiti is not Mimo, but Price? Wouldn't it be easier to just buy one product line? All the vendors are going to be carrying MIMO anyway, thats whats most popular right now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappydsl.net> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiuiti N and selecting antenna port Only the Rocket M's have the antenna port on them, all of the others have built in antennas.... since Rocket M's are really to be used as AP's , could I ask what is the vlaue in trying to do what you are asking for ? Why not just deploy the Radios with the antennas, that they are designed to work with ? What is there to be gained by using a 802.11n radio and then 'crippling' it by using some external settings for 'disabling' one of the antenna ports ? If it is interference you are worried about, let the 2x2 radio with Airmax on, take care off it it self. Faisal. On 5/20/2010 9:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > With Ubiquiti and any 2x2mimo N gear, there are two antenna ports or > "chains". If mode 1-7 is selected only Chain 0 (antenna port1) is > enabled. > If mode 8-14 is selected, the Chain1 (antenna port2) is enabled, and > dependant on how much noise Antenna2 heard, the radio would automatically > enable and disable antenna2 on the fly asrequired to optimize quality. > In this scenario, chain0 is one polarity and chain1 is the other polarity. > The negative part of this is that Chain0 will always be the antenna > polarity > connected to that Chain0 antenna port. And by default Chain0's polarity > will > always be the one that AT MINIMUM is enabled. > > I dont like that because flexibilty is lost. I prefer a method like Trango > or dual port 802.11a, where if only one port is desired, the antenna port > to > use can be custom selected. > An example secnario would be... Chain0 was originally installed withVert > pol, and then a month later noise levels changed, and now only Horizonal > pol > is clean. How would the Radio be changed to use the Horizontal pol antenna > only, without a truck role? > That flexibilty is invaluable. Its also good for documentation > standardization... For example, lets say by standard Horizontal pol is > always isntalled on Chain0. Would it be nice if the remote NOC tech could > always count on that, to ease knowing what Pol was used at sites? > Wouldn;t > it be nice to just select "chain1 only" to enable that Verticle pol > antenna > only, if there was a need to change pols after the fact? Or if > documentation > was not accessible when installing a new link, to know what pol other > radios > are on simply by which chain was enabled on the radio's software, to make > it > easier to select the right non-interfering pol for the new link? Its also > helpful to isntall an AP link, and then after the fact have a noc tech > select which pol is most free to operate on. This enables a one man team > installer and tech force to isntall more quickly, and adapt later when it > is > more convenient to do so, such as from the comfort of their desk. Or > after > going to client side and doing a noise scan there to. Obviously Mimo is > about using both antennas, but in many case, the future will cause that no > longer to be viable as new deployments get made. > > So my questions are.... > > Can this be done with UbiquitiOS and MadWifi? (I recognize that the Web > interface does not allow it currently) Is there a way to change which > antenna port acts as Chain0 through software? Or a way to select which > Chain > will act as the Primary port when mode 1-7 is selected? Does the 802.11N > MIMO standard allow for that? Is this functionality hard coded out of the > Atheros chipset? Or will the Atheros chip do it, if software is modified > to > tell it to? Is chain1 the only one that can operate with the features to > auto enable and disable itself? > > I recognize there are some challenges where the CPE side will autoadjust > to > the AP side. So the CPE does need to understand which Port to enable as > primary and optional secondary. > But it would be super advatnateous to be able to select which chain acted > as > the primary. > > Anyone know? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom DeReggi"<wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> > To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:32 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on RuralILECsand > SmallTelecom Provider's > > > It sounds like a lot of good was taken and contributed to that meeting. > I'm glad you were there. > > What interests me most will be to fully learn what scenergies will be > found > between our groups. > At the end of the day, when it come to government increasing regulation, > the > sides become provider versus governbment. Under those circumstances, its > amazing how many issues we share in common with these other groups. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick Harnish"<rharn...@wispa.org> > To: "'WISPA General List'"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECsand > SmallTelecom Provider's > > > Tom, > > The general perception is that mobile broadband providers will be the most > likely recipients of the Reverse Auction procedure. Voice is going mobile > and they obviously have a solid lobbying front. It would seem logical > that > mobile providers could accept lower subsidies with lower overhead and > still > produce respectable revenue. I am not totally familiar with all the USF > details but with landlines decreasing at a rapid rate it would seem > logical > that this shift would go to the resulting technology that replaces > landlines. Of note, there will be only one USF subsidy recipient per NGU > after the reverse auction is complete. Therefore, only one company will > be > subsidized in each geographical area. If that doesn't spell MONOPOLY, I > don't know what does. > > The Rural ILEC's do not expect good things to come from the USF rewrite. > Now those opinions presented may be biased. The presenters were Bob Gnapp > of NECA and Douglas Meredith from John Starulakis, Inc. (JSI). > > The group welcomed my comments and I saw lots of head shaking (up and > down) > as I spoke. Although competitors, they understand the power of > partnership, > at least they seemed to. I suppose they could have just been courteous. > I > have reached out to Bob Gnapp from NECA today and he said: > > "Rick, > I think your proposal to see what our associations may be able to > accomplish > together is a good one. I'll be in touch. > Bob" > > There is realistically recognition from the Rural ILECs that unlicensed > spectrum is competition, especially if they hold AWS or 700 MHz licenses. > One speaker acted as though all spectrum would be auctioned to raise money > to pay for the Broadband Stimulus and National Broadband Plan. That is > one > very important reason we need to achieve higher member participation > throughout our industry. > > Respectfully, > Rick Harnish > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:07 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and >> SmallTelecom Provider's >> >> Rick, >> >> Good info.... >> >> How open was that group (rural ILECs) to WISPA in general? Did they >> agree or >> disagree that there were scenergies to work togeather? I would think >> that >> Rural ILECs would benefit heavilly from the NBP goals that favored >> subsidizing Rural ILECs. >> Basically instead of USF recipients gaining funds for Phone, they >> receive >> the same funds to build broadband. Why wouldn't they want that? A >> local >> non-ILEC WISP surely wouldn't want that. >> >> "$24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly accomplished >> by USF modifications): >> >> "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly >> supporting >> high-capacity broadband deployments" >> >> "Only one recipient per NGU" >> >> "One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected)" >> >> So what that says to me is that we are in trouble. NBP's intent is to >> give >> the remaing userved market to monoplies. >> And more so it suggests USF could be one of the biggest threats to >> WISPs, >> because the program could generate enough funds to successfully fund >> giving >> all the remaining prime unserved markets to ILECs. >> What it says to me is, NBP's intent is to REPEAT the mistake of the >> Original >> USF, by replicating the flaws for broadband. >> >> "HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION? IMHO, this creates >> Mini-monopolies in each service territory " >> >> All I can say to that is, AMEN! I here ya. >> >> What bothers me the most is.... NOT ONE SINGLE WORD to preserving small >> local operators and competition. >> Not one word about strengthening the "provider industry" as a whole. >> This is a plan to extinguish an industry, in favor of building mini >> monopolies.. >> Unless we stop that destrutive mind set, or derail progress, our >> industry >> is doomed. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rick Harnish"<rharn...@wispa.org> >> To:<memb...@wispa.org>;<motor...@afmug.com>; "'WISPA General List'" >> <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:33 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] National Broadband Plan effects on Rural ILECs and >> SmallTelecom Provider's >> >> >> Yesterday, I attended a conference of primarily Rural ILECs with a >> focus on >> the National Broadband Plan. It was very interesting to hear another >> perspective of the plan other than from the wireless industry. Below I >> will >> outline some major talking points that were discussed. The first >> speaker >> was from NECA (National Exchange Carrier's Association). He started >> out the >> conversation by saying "The National Broadband Plan is a bad plan for >> Rural >> ILECs and Small telecommunication providers" >> >> >> >> Later in the program, I had a chance to introduce myself and WISPA. >> Someone >> asked the question, "What can we do to proactively voice our concerns". >> I >> recommended that small trade associations break down the barriers when >> common interests are at stake. It is essential that partnering between >> associations will give NPRM/NOI comments more credibility and a greater >> likelihood be successful. Partnering may also lower lobbying and legal >> costs which WILL BE substantial in the next few years. My prediction >> is >> that many small trade associations will exhaust all capital required to >> effectively lobby to protect their particular industry interests and >> will >> cease to exist. It is important that STA's search for efficient >> methods to >> reach satisfactory conclusions. STA's must seek full support from >> their >> industry participants and in many cases, raise dues to meet the >> lobbying >> demand which is already on the table. It is also essential that >> cooperative >> lobbying efforts be adopted between associations to conserve funding. >> >> >> >> Someone asked me who I thought was behind the National Broadband Plan. >> Having been a participant representing WISPA at the National Broadband >> Coalition meetings, it became apparent to me that Washington lobbyists >> and >> attorneys have the most to gain by creating conflict and rewriting >> telecom >> rules. Do we need a strategic plan? Absolutely! Do we need >> everything >> that has been proposed? Absolutely NOT! From my perspective, this >> proposed >> plan is very two-faced. While proponents say they want to promote >> competition, it appears that small competition will be forced out of >> business. The devil is in the details. >> >> >> >> We can succeed but we need nearly total cooperation from all WISPs. >> >> We need to build our membership base substantially over the next few >> months. >> >> >> We need to seek out new Association partners. >> >> We need to improve our Broadband speeds >> >> We need to continue to lobby for more usable spectrum and use it >> efficiently >> >> We need to continue to push manufacturers to improve performance, speed >> and >> capacity >> >> We need to better promote our industry and its capabilities >> >> We need to be less "selfish" with our hard-earned revenues as insurance >> to >> protect our businesses from over regulation by supporting our trade >> association >> >> We need to be more proactive instead of reactive. >> >> We need to complain less and be more constructive. In fighting will >> get us >> nowhere. >> >> We need to reach out to neighboring WISPs in your state or area and >> promote >> the need to support WISPA >> >> >> >> The time is now, there is little time to waste. We either stand up and >> be >> recognized or we will begin to die a slow and painful death. I'm an >> optimist by nature and I struggle to write these realities, but they >> need to >> be said. >> >> >> >> Below is an outline of the speech from yesterday. >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Overview: >> >> · "The NBP is a strategic plan; it is not a series of rules" >> Carol >> Mattey, Deputy Bureau Chief, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau. >> >> · Numerous NPRMs forthcoming (60 are proposed in the next >> twelve >> months) >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Goals: >> >> · Promote world leading mobile broadband >> >> · Foster competition and maximize benefits >> >> · Advance and secure public safety communications >> >> · Increase Broadband access and adoption >> >> o Introduces recommendations to reform federal USF programs and the >> ICC >> system >> >> · Speed Goals (by 2020) (Actual throughput between the >> customer and >> the closest Internet Gateway) >> >> o 4/1 Mbps national minimum >> >> o 100/50 Mbps to 100 million homes >> >> o 1 Gbps (downstream) to Anchor Institutions >> >> · "Over time these targets will continue to rise" >> >> o Reevaluate speeds every 4 years >> >> · Close the "broadband availability gap" >> >> o 14 million individuals in 7 million "housing units" >> >> § 50% in RBOC territory (which RBOC's were claimed to have done a >> relatively poor job of broadband deployment) >> >> · $24 billion needed to close the gap by 2020 (mostly >> accomplished >> by USF modifications) >> >> o Does not include the cost of maintaining "served" areas >> >> · Additional congressional support suggested >> >> >> >> National Broadband Plan Time Frame >> >> · Implement USF and ICC reforms over 10 years in three stages >> >> o Stage 1 (2010-2011) - Mapping - data gathering, rulemaking, limited >> implementation (Heavy reliance on data gathering so educated decisions >> can >> be made) >> >> o Stage 2 (2012-2016) - Most reforms begin >> >> o Stage 3 (2017-2020) -Complete transitions >> >> >> >> Proposed USF Reforms >> >> · Increase Broadband availability by: >> >> o "modernizing" the High Cost Fund to target Broadband deployment >> >> § Completely gutting existing USF programs and replacing with new >> programs >> >> § "shift from supporting legacy telephone networks to directly >> supporting >> high-capacity broadband deployments" >> >> § 91% of funding proposed to go to Broadband capable networks >> >> o Remove Broadband adoption barriers by: >> >> § Modifying lifeline, rural health care and E-rate programs >> >> · Existing non-adopter concerns >> >> o Affordability >> >> o Internet of no relevance to their lives >> >> o Personal security concerns >> >> · New Funding Mechanisms >> >> o Mobility Fund >> >> § Provide support for deployment of 3G networks >> >> · Short lived >> >> · Nationwide ubiquitous coverage >> >> § Assist in ubiquitous 3G coverage >> >> · Provide footprint of future 4G services >> >> § One time disbursement in Stage 2 (2012 target) >> >> · To states lagging behind the national average >> >> · Capital expenditures only - no OPEX >> >> o Connect America Fund (CAF) >> >> § Provide support to preserve and advance Internet connectivity >> >> § Address the Broadband availability gap >> >> § Support only to geographic areas lacking a "private sector business >> case" >> >> · "Neutral geographic units" >> >> o Not study areas (present model) >> >> o Mapping based on census level information >> >> o Proposed NGU's are counties >> >> § Eligibility >> >> · Provide 4/1 Mbps Broadband and "high quality" voice service >> >> · Only one recipient per NGU >> >> · Company and Technology agnostic >> >> o Incumbant or Competitor >> >> o Rural and Non-Rural >> >> · Meet "Broadband provider of last resort obligation" >> >> § Support Amounts >> >> · Include CAOEX and may include OPEX >> >> o "Fast Track" CAPEX only >> >> · Include Middle Mile costs >> >> · Support Levels based on "net gap" principle >> >> o Forward looking cost less revenues >> >> o Based on modeling >> >> · Distribution begins in Stage 2 >> >> o Cap USF support at 2010 levels (contribution factor is too high >> presently and is a political hot potato) >> >> o Focus first on areas requiring lower support amounts (It is >> estimated >> that it will cost $56,000/subscriber to get the final 250,000 citizens >> hooked up to Broadband", thus they will lag behind) >> >> o Selections for both funds to be market based >> >> § Competitive procurement auctions proposed >> >> · USF funding price for a given market will be set high >> >> · Bidders will bid down the price until the lowest bidder is >> achieved >> >> · One awardee per territory (county levels are suspected) >> >> · Awardee will gain exclusive USF subsidies fCoor each >> territory >> >> · HOW DOES THAT PROMOTE COMPETITION? IMHO, this creates >> Mini-monopolies in each service territory >> >> · It is anticipated that mobile broadband providers will be the >> big >> winners in this scenario >> >> o Other Programs >> >> § Modify Lifeline and Link-up programs to include broadband services >> (use >> only service that includes voice) >> >> § Enhance health care and E-Rate programs (increasing speeds up to 1 >> Gbps) >> >> § Other potential enhancements via pilot programs >> >> · CPE and modem subsidies to end user cost and increase >> adoption >> >> o Funding Shift >> >> § Stage 1 >> >> · Begin to phase out CETC support (estimated savings $3.9 >> billion) >> >> § Stage 2 >> >> · Redirect remaining CETC support (estimated savings $5.8 >> billion) >> >> o One provider will get support instead of multiple competitors in a >> given >> NGU >> >> o Redirect Interstate Access Support (estimated savings $4.0 billion) >> >> o Require Rate-of-Return carriers to move to incentive regulation >> (estimated savings $0) >> >> § Price capping >> >> § Designed for Monopoly areas >> >> o Freeze Interstate Common Line Support (estimated savings $1.8 >> billion) >> >> § Lines dropping 5-8%/year >> >> o Total Savings $15.5 billion >> >> § Savings refocused to CAF Program $11 billion >> >> § Mobility Fund-Erate and Switched Access $4 billion >> >> § Stage 3 >> >> · Eliminate remaining legacy programs >> >> o High cost loop >> >> o Funding Mechanism >> >> § "Broaden the USF contribution base to ensure USF remains sustainable >> over >> time" >> >> · Approach to be determined in Stage 1 >> >> · Implementation to begin in Stage 2 >> >> >> >> Proposed ICC Reform >> >> * Generalizations: >> >> * Switched Access is decreasing >> * Special Access is increasing >> >> * Stage 1 >> >> * Interim access arbitrage solution >> >> * Stage 2 >> >> * Reduce intrastate terminating rates to interstate levels >> * Reduce all originating and terminating access rates to reciprocal >> compensation levels >> * Eliminate all per minute ICC rates by 2020 >> >> * Allow for "alternate compensation arrangements" >> * Increased SLC, local rate rebalancing and possible USF funding for >> lost revenue >> >> >> >> Other NBP Recommendations >> >> * Wireless spectrum and data roaming >> * Computer ownership >> * Digital literacy >> * Public Safety >> * Smart Grid development >> * Promote competition >> >> * Pricing and performance transparency >> * Review wholesale competition rules >> * Infrastructure& Rights-of-way rule modifications >> * Set Top boxes >> >> >> >> Respectively and Join<http://signup.wispa.org/> WISPA Today, >> >> >> >> Rick Harnish >> >> President >> >> WISPA >> >> 260-307-4000 cell >> >> 866-317-2851 WISPA Office >> >> Skype: rick.harnish. >> >> rharn...@wispa.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------- >> 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/
