Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

WiMax Landscape Taking Shape 108

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-got-no-strings-to-hold-me-down dept.
geekee writes "A front page article in EETimes describes some of the goals, as well as some of the issues, involved in WiMax (802.16a) development. The main goal is to deliver 74Mb/s up to 50 km. One big issue is the tighter specs required when compared with WiFi. "It's a big train wreck, and much more complicated than 802.11a design, especially in terms of dynamic range, spectral range and phase noise in RF," said Colin Howlett, a senior RF engineer at VCom Inc. There are at least 4 known companies working on the RF portion and 4 known companies working on the baseband processing. These companies include Intel, Fujitsu, and Maxim. Another issue is in getting governments to agree on regulation standards for the systems, particularly in the 2.5, 3.5, and 5.8 GHz bands, Inconsistancies exist in the requirements for dynamic frequency selection and transmit power control, as well as spectrum allocation. Cost is also an important factor, since WiMax is positioning itself as an alternative to DSL and Cable, and therefore, companies must be able to offer competitve prices to gain market share."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WiMax Landscape Taking Shape More

WiMax Landscape Taking Shape

Comments Filter:
  • at that point I throw away my ethernet cables.

    • Re:faster faster faster (Score:5, Interesting)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:53PM (#8127532) Homepage
      cheaper cheaper cheaper: I throw away all perhipheral cables

      create a wireless power [bbc.co.uk] standard, and I finally throw away all external cables!

      • Well, of course the component you link to isn't as such wireless... The wire is just a great deal bigger than you're used to. Now what I want is air transmitted power. What I don't want is to get in between the transmitter and the reciever (think microwave). :)
        • Well, I believe there can be air between the device and the power transmitter with the current product... it just might be that the air gap is something on the order of 1mm.

          Yeah, current wireless power sucks in that we can mostly on conceive of it being transmitted via magnet or microwave, both having big detractions (eg. vs hard drives, or human skin). If they could figure out how to cheaply/precisely/safely aim laser beams at a window on each device, that would be better, but that sounds far fetched a

      • That device just uses magnetic induction to transfer power, just like those powered tooth brushes.

        There was a story here a little while back about true wireless power, using a highly focused microwave beam. Find it here [slashdot.org]
    • Screw that, man, ethernet cables within a building have the added benefit of being secure (plus it's fun to rip your apartment up running cable).

      But I'd love to ditch my cell provider and go with a VoIP solution via WiMax. Of course, coverage would be an issue for a long time to come, but at least I wouldn't have to worry about minutes.
      • I wouldn't have to worry about minutes

        How do you know they wont charge per minute or per kilobyte?

        Cells will get cheaper, and more unlimited plans will show up, because the infrastructure is there and practically paid for, they need only make up maintanaince costs..

        Think how much it cost to use a cell phone in the 80s for a guesstimate at your WiMax service bill.
    • I wouldnt do that quite yet, especially for internal LAN use.

      Network cables offer some sense of security, you cant look at the data on a network cable without physically hooking up to the cable. If you secure your cable, you secure your communication.

      For wireless, you cant very well secure the sky, so it is a lot less secure.

      Obviously there is encryption, but moving from wired to wireless gives the spy just one less thing to worry about.

      It really doesn't matter to much in a home network, I suppose, but

  • Another article (Score:5, Informative)

    by W32.Klez.A ( 656478 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:50PM (#8127494) Homepage
    Here is another good article on Wimax [computerworld.com].

    • Ars Technica (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Srividya ( 746733 )
      The gentlemen at Ars have a nice comment [arstechnica.com] on how the industry is feeling about deployment of WiMAX as a replacement for existing broadband.
  • Any improvement which will lead to an increase in bandwidth for little cost can only be a good thing. I for one welcome this new development and hope that this organisation gets sufficient funding to continue these advances.

    • There are so many problems with that. (Score:4, Informative)

      by qortra ( 591818 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:01PM (#8127624)
      First of all, This will probably not substantially increase bandwidth to target users. Though it might have a higher theoretical maximum, they simply cannot afford to offer more bandwidth than your average cable ISP already provides.

      Second of all, I don't think this will necessarily have a lower cost than existing connections. Cable and telephone infrastructure already exists necessarily because of other technologies; that means that cable and dsl providers really don't have much overhead on those technologies (beyond the bandwidth and the routers, which they would need anyway).

      Finally, I don't think we have to "hope" that Intel gets sufficient funding; I mean, feel free to donate, but they have enough funding to develop wimax or any other technology for the next millenium.

      Beyond all that, this could be a very nice innovation for one reason; Convenience.

      • Second of all, I don't think this will necessarily have a lower cost than existing connections. Cable and telephone infrastructure already exists

        This is true. If you ignore the fact that competition hasn't had an opportunity to drive prices down yet, wi-max equipment is still incredibly expensive. The infrastructure is vapor, and will be until the market sees more than a handful of vendors pushing gear that implements the new standard.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Bandwith can get really dam cheap .
        $30/mb (capped) on 100M commits .
        This means a cheap ISP could set up two/three of these (to cover a certain area) and still be well within the currently accepted overselling standards for end user internet connections (lets be honest , how often would you burst 10MBs if you had data transfer billed per $1/GB month?)
        Then when the ISP needs to add more capcity (say everyone goes full out) they can add public peering relatively cheaply .
        Profit , without the ????
    • I don't believe that you posted the phrase "I for one welcome" to Slashdot without following it with the word "Overlords".
    • Is it possible that cell phone networks could start using this? I mean 50 km is a long distance, and 74mbps is plenty for sharing voice and data. It'd be cool having my phone tied into a regular network.
      Regards,
      Steve

  • Backbone, maybe. Consumers? I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:52PM (#8127520) Homepage Journal
    I could see using this for a backbone to get the signal out to fringe areas, but for the last-mile to the consumer, 802.11b(g) is more than sufficient. When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house? If the internet ever gets _that_ bloated that you need that fat of a pipe, it's time to turn off the computers and go outside.
    • i was thinking the same thing. whats the point of having internet going at 70+mbps. it gets to be a moot point when you're downloading a few 50k jpeg files and some text.
      • i was thinking the same thing. whats the point of having internet going at 70+mbps. it gets to be a moot point when you're downloading a few 50k jpeg files and some text.

        You're not thinking big enough. I think the key word here is convergence. At really high speeds, 50 mbps for example, everything comes through the internet. Voice over ip is the first example as it requires relatively little bandwidth. Television and on demand movies are real bandwidth hogs, and will not be delivered over the internet

      • Its 70megabits to everyone on the same access point, not just to one subscriber. Its sort of like how a cable modem headend can cope with a hundred megabytes but the subscriber can only get 1.5meg.

        70mb with 20:1 oversubscription will be good for about 500 customers in about 5 years in the US or other well connected areas.

    • Re:Backbone, maybe. Consumers? I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nial-in-a-box ( 588883 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:00PM (#8127613) Homepage
      No, 802.11 anything is not sufficient. Unless using specialized antennas at both ends, 802.11 would not even be adequate from the utility pole to the house in many circumstances. Anyone who has any experience with wireless ethernet knows that the range is never as good as it's hyped up to be, especially through walls and such.
      • No, 802.11 anything is not sufficient.

        My personal experience differs from your statement.

        Unless using specialized antennas at both ends, 802.11 would not even be adequate from the utility pole to the house in many circumstances.

        The "specialized antennas" are 50 or 60 bucks each, readily available online from many sources. I've been using standard, off-the-shelf Linksys WAP11's and a couple of 24dBi directional antennas, on an 802.11b link, for the last year. I'm 1.1 miles from my source, and have fu
      • The biggest problem with Wi-Fi is that the people deploying it understand computers and perhaps computer networks, not radio. And they almost certainly know nothing about building telecomunications infrastructure.

        Going up to 30 miles with up to 74Mb/s is not exactly the same this as going 30 miles at 74Mb/s. Even if it achieves this goal (doubtful in my book without a massive power increase), it is almost irrelevant to any purposeful application. Think about it: 8VSB, used to broadcast digital televisi

        • Thank you for your very insightful comments on this. While I agree with what you're saying and appreciate that you know a lot about this, I must also say that regardless of what you can do with 802.11, not everyone is going to be pushing it to its limits. I am certain that you realize that, because it has to be obvious that most people don't know how to install a directional antenna, mainly because most people don't know what that is. I do not know all the variables involved in signal quality, but I do k

    • Re:Backbone, maybe. Consumers? I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:04PM (#8127644)
      ... 50Mb/second to your house? If the internet ever gets _that_ bloated that you need that fat of a pipe, it's time to turn off the computers and go outside.
      If you ever need more than 640k of RAM its time to turn off the computer and go outside!
    • One reason the broadband in the USA is behind other countries is the population density. With WiMax (stupid name - what will the next version be called WiMaxXTREAM?) one tower with a fancy antenna can cover a lot more ground.
    • When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house?

      This is wireless though, so all users within a particular tranceivers coverage area would share that bandwidth. 802.11g gets close, but to ge the kind of range 802.16 is supposed to provide you have to hack together directional antennas, and there is no standard for that.

    • Re:Backbone, maybe. Consumers? I don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:28PM (#8127891)
      *This is not backbone technology*

      802.11b is not a viable access solution
      802.11b does not have enough reach or capacity to service a city. Limited bandwitdh, 11 MB/sec makes deployment in highly populated areas an un-reality. Each node can realisticly support 10 or 11 households. To support densly populated areas, hundreds of nodes would be required. In addition there is no real "roaming" available with 802.11b. The G simply ups your limited bandwidth to something higher, at the cost of range. That's not really a viable solution. Finally the limited range makes deployment in rural and suburban areas an impossibility.

      The way of the future
      A *SINGLE* 802.16 node would be capable of hosting about 1100 64K voice over IP channels. The same bandwitdh could be used to provide appx. 140 "broadband wireless" subscribers with 512K channels. That's pretty impressive. Stack 10 Nodes and you have 1440 broadband subscribers. Not only that, 802.16 was designed as a solution for Metropolitan Area Networks. 802.16 is simply an evolution of the 802.11 technology, scaled for carrier grade deployment, and the servicing of a large number of end users.

      The real last mile solution
      In rural areas, and even some city suburbs the reality of "broadband" isn't coming to fruition. The primary reason is cost. It costs too much to deploy cable systems and becuause of the distance from a central office, DSL is not feasible. Satellite isn't really all that great as on of it's "Features" is the very high latency.

      A new age
      802.16 will begin a new wireless age. In the coming years we will find that there is no Data and Voice usage with our cellphones, as the notion of a "Data Channel" and "Voice Channel" will go away, all calls will be just data. Instead of an 802.11b card, you will have an 802.x chip built into your laptop or handheld device, you will gain access to the same network that your phone uses and the protocol to do so will be the same. We will all have access, uniquitous access to data from any place that currently has cellphone coverage. 802.16, and it's future generations will be "The way" that data networks are accessed wirelessly.
      • Why is it that 802.16 has vastly improved bandwidth and range compared to 802.11b/g?

        Does it require special antennas and bulkier equipment? I imagine the power of the signal must be vastly greater... My 802.11b wireless card transmits at about 30 mW and with a very rudimentary antenna.

        So what's different in 802.16?
        • 802.16 uses more efficient modulation than 802.11g (AFAIK).

          802.16 equipment uses larger antennas (and probably more power) than 802.11 PCMCIA cards.

          802.16 uses a much more efficient MAC protocol than 802.11.
        • 802.16 uses different, and wider range of frequencies than 802.11b/g. It also uses multiple bands simulatenously 2Ghz, 3 GHz, 5.8Ghz. There seems to be a range even beyond 10Ghz that will be used. WiMax as it is being called, also uses these bands simulatanously, thereby achieving a higher throughput, and greater range. I don't know specifically what the power consumpition is like, most the hardware is in an "Alpha" stage.

          I imagine the antennas will be much the same as they are now, as for bulk equipment -

      • 802.16 is simply an evolution of the 802.11 technology, scaled for carrier grade deployment, and the servicing of a large number of end users.

        Even scaled at the numbers you say, this seems like it would require a heck of a lot of cells to service a large population. In a city of a million people your talking on the order of 1000 cells (each with 10 "nodes" as you say, in them). Each of the cells being strategically placed and configured so as to not kill its neighbors.

        This all sounds highly improbable

    • Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then. Seriously, why do people even assert that more bandwidth is somehow unnecessary. There are all kinds of scenarios that exist today that can't be handled because bandwidth is such a limiting factor.

      Bigger, faster, better is done in the name of progress. No one says you can't take a break from fast-paced technology by going for a hike in the woods. Hell, you can give it up entirely and live there for all I care.
      • Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then.

        Do the math. What's your bitrate from a DVD? IP may not be the appropriate solution for, er, _broadcast_. We've got these things called "satellite TV" and "cable TV" which fill that need just fine _at this time_.

        Just don't go around asserting that things are fine the way they are and nothing should change, it only makes you look ignorant.

        And likewise, don't go around asserting that people have made a sta

  • real bandwidth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tirel ( 692085 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:52PM (#8127522)
    lets just hope the gear can handle that kind of bandwidth, my netgear access point says 54mbit/s, but i only get 10mbit/s sustained bandwidth. quite frankly i think they're cheating their customers putting a bandwidth label on the box when it doesnt even reach one third of it. The D-Link AP we got later wasn't much better either, only 10mbit again. I have doubts if we will see that kind of bandwidth.
    • The bandwidth specs listed on the box reflect maximum values under optimal conditions, and I thought that this was misunderstood. Granted, wireless ethernet device makers don't really mention this clearly on their packaging (as with 56k modems), but even with wired ethernet there has never been any guarantee of speed whatsoever. Typically, the faster the theoretical max, the faster the actual speeds will be, but they are usually only a fraction of that max.
    • My D-Link AP and my Laptop with the matching D-Link card (both AirPlus series) sit on the desk next to each other. Nearly touching. I can't get a 1/3rd of the speed on the box. What do you call optimal?
      • 1) Not to insult your intelligence, but make sure you're not expecting 54MB/s. 54Mb/s is 54/8 or 6.75MB/s.

        2) Make sure both ends are set to use 54Mb/s. Maybe one is set to 10Mb/s somewhere.

        3) Make sure you don't have a 10Mb/s wireless connection also talking. It will degrade all your wireless connections to 10Mb/s.

        4) Make sure there's no other 2.4GHz interference around (phones, baby monitors, X10 cameras, right next to a CRT, etc.). Might be a problem if you're in an apartment.

        If you're sure none of th
        • 1) I know bit/byte. ;) 2) Both ends are set to 54mbit. The PC side usually indicates its connected at ~24mbit. 3&4) No other wireless hardware. It's a warehouse with nothing around. No wireless phones, or anything else 2.4GHz either. Thanks for the suggestions though. :)

  • *NOT* a consumer technology.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:53PM (#8127528)
    WiMax is not a replacement for WiFi, it's a backbone protocol for long-haul RF connections. It'll take place on licensed bandwidth which will be illegal to try to jam, as opposed to WiFi where there's nothing stoping your neighbor from using the same frequencies...
    • Then why does the linked article say that in will be builtin to laptops in the future?

      Sounds like a consumer tech to me.

    • Re:*NOT* a consumer technology.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by qortra ( 591818 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:14PM (#8127751)
      From the article:

      Backers hope WiMAX could be used as a replacement for T1 lines for business, become a backhaul for 802.11 hotspots, provide Internet access for consumers and get integrated along with .11 into notebook computers some day.

      Well, your theory makes a lot more sense, but it looks like it disagrees with the article; I'm just curious, where did you get your information?

      • Re:*NOT* a consumer technology.. (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        WiMax only works in access point mode, no ad-hoc mode is supported. Obviously you need a consumer access device which is where WiMax integrated laptops come in.

        WiMax AP's will by design be very expensive just like DSLAM's are, whilst the recievers should be cheap just like DSL modems are.

  • Remote sensing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:53PM (#8127533) Journal
    It'd be pretty cool to have automatic control/readouts of things like wind/precipitation/dish aerials etc. from the weather monitors, most of which are in the middle of nowhere. With this sort of range, you can do a lot more :-)

    If the RSPB are trying to make sure no-one nicks the eggs, they just get a Tini or similar linked up to a webcam and one of these networks, and you have yourself a remote monitoring station for those rare eggs without some poor sod having to sit there for 10 weeks...

    Not to mention the more normal uses, of course :-)))

    Simon
  • now only if they would extend that 50km to 150km so i can get wireless internet at school out in BFE ohio. i wont hold my breath though. ill just have to stick with my crappy 300k/50k roadrunner.

  • FCC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zzxc ( 635106 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:54PM (#8127547)
    The FCC is supposed to license on behalf of the people... not to get big money from corporations to limit the public's use. The public should be given all the bandwidth they need... not what is left over after the corporate landgrab (like the useless 2.4ghz spectrum... microwave ovens). The FCC is overstepping its duty and should be dealt with accordingly.
    • oooh yes we have one of those 2.4ghz transmitters so that we can watch the telly while cooking... though as soon as the microwave goes on then bzzzzzzwwwwwwwzzzzzzpsssshhhhhhhhhaaaaaa

    • Re:FCC (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) *
      What is the FCC doing wrong in terms of allocations?

      Almost any consumer device you can think of exists at 900MHz, 2.4gHz, or 5.8gHz, and I don't see any stuck on the drawing board devices waiting for more bandwidth to be available. The rest of the frequencies are of course going to be devided up by the highest bidders, there's a finite quanity that has to be split up otherwise a tragedy of the commons would occur.

      RF users need to spend their time looking for better ways to use the bandwidth they already h

  • Tell me why (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 )
    I want to share 74Mb/s with everyone within a 50km radius?

    Sounds like a pretty crappy, easily oversold service, with crappy ping times. We already have that and it's called satellite.

    Wires are the future. Wireless is for sock thumpers.
    • This isn't meant for sharing. It's meant for a tight-beam point-to-point protocol for backbone connections in remote areas where wires are hard to run.
      • This isn't meant for sharing. It's meant for a tight-beam point-to-point protocol for backbone connections in remote areas where wires are hard to run.

        Isn't 802.16a point to multipoint? Or is that b,c,d,e,f or g?

    • Re:Tell me why (Score:3, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter ( 138342 )
      In reality, WiMax cells will only have ~5 mile radius. The cells are also sectorized, so you'd only be sharing the bandwidth with 1/6th of the people within the cell.

  • And I thought it was a magazine (Score:4, Funny)

    by MhzJnky ( 443677 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:59PM (#8127598) Homepage
    companies include Intel, Fujitsu, and Maxim

    And here I thought it was just a Playboy wanna-be with out the wit or boobs...

  • Why are they waiting until .16e ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @04:05PM (#8127660)
    and 2006 to have the key mobility and roaming capabilities? If it's enough of a deal-breaker that large and small businesses are keeping their proprietary plans in play, then perhaps it's good reason to do the extra work and get (at least some of) it in now.
  • If "WiMax is positioning itself as an alternative to DSL and Cable", why not start with like... 2Mb/s?

  • Coming soon to Houston County, Georgia (Score:3, Informative)

    by Uninvited Guest ( 237316 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @05:10PM (#8128427)
    There is an effort to setup one of these networks in my county this year (2004). They expect to need two antennas to cover the entire county. Intel and IBM met with the public and municipal officials last week. So far, no company has offered to be the ISP, but BellSouth, Cox, and Alltel are obvious choices. Initially, service will be offered to businesses, later to residential customers. If the project goes through, Intel says this will be the first site in the United States to be covered.

    Official Home Page [wirelessho...county.org] (only looks right in IE)
    Stories [tallahassee.com] from the local paper
  • SURGEON GENERAL SUPPORTS NEW WIRE TECHNOLOGY

    NEW YORK - Over the past century, the health of humans has been
    increasingly endagered by the radiation in the evironment. Ever since
    we have had networks, we have had radiation, and in ever
    increasing amounts.

    Since the high amount of radiation in our environment has been
    identified as the primary cause of death in modern society (radiation
    is the cause of all cancers and mutations which are responsible for
    41% of all deaths today), more and more voices are taking up
  • These hi-power radio nets put lots of people on the same segment, competing for bandwidth. The supply side vendors talk about bandwidth like 74Mbps as if it were a lot, when it gets spread around a 50Km radius sphere. In NYC, that's 20M people, for under 4bps - a byte every two seconds. Meanwhile, lower power is more distributed for redundancy and segmented bandwidth management. Where are the mobile device makers, whose marketers depend on the people with the demand, to tell the marketdroids at TI and Sprin
    • You don't have to use high power and long range. You can build a half-mile-radius WiMax cell if you want to.
      • I'm looking for examples of short-range WMAN installations that also attenuate the beams within corridors like Manhattan's avenues, to reduce multipath and maximize efficiency. Got any?
  • I just bought a new house in a "growth area" just north of Dallas (i.e.- Keep your cats inside or the coyotes will eat them. Really.)...it is outside the DSL range (RT node coming soon, hold your breath) and the cable co's refuse to run lines down my street until more people move in (continue holding breath). My parents think it's hilarious that I didn't immediately disqualify the house.

    My only non-satellite alternative turned out to be a wireless broadband service. Their techs mounted a square antenna
  • As a WISP owner, I can say for sure that having much higher bandwidth APs is extremely helpful. With 802.11, you are operating at the *lowest* common speed, so if one of your clients can only manage 1Mbps, that's all you get to share among everyone.

    What remains to be seen is if 802.16 will tackle the pitfalls of 802.11. I suspect it won't, and if it doesn't then we're only marginally better off. Frankly, you can get close to 50km links on 802.11 equipment under ideal conditions, so that's not a big bene
    • WiMax uses centrally scheduled TDMA, so it doesn't suffer from the hidden node problem. WiMax can also run full duplex (for some reason the vendors call it FDD), but most equipment seems to not support it.
  • ...to 802.20

    802.11 + 802.16 + 802.20 = Pervasive net (last word can be substituted by nightmare)

  • Locustworld has made so much progress with 802.11b They have technology that can let you build or buy APs that act as a regular 802.11b AP, Authentication gateway, Multiple Router/Repeater, bluetooth internet access, bluetooth camera server, you can even hook webcams up to this shizzle and run a webserver at the same time. Nodes can use IDE cdrom, flash card, or IDE/SCSCII HD to run the os/distor/meshsoftware... Security is up to 2048 bit and 512bit for internode communication..WEP..MAC ADDRESS AUTHENTICA
  • How will ISP:s protect themselves against connection sharing? Even now, me and 3 or 4 neighbours could theoretically share the same 10mbit connection (each of us paying every 4rd or 5th month, instead of $40 each, per month). The 802.11 gets kinda crappy through concrete external walls though. But these new standards should provide a suspicious drop in the number of paid internet connections in any area, no?
  • ...whether any form of wireless service (ie, 802.11? based, not Spring Broadband or satellite) exists in the Greater Phoenix (AZ) area?

    I would be interested in it myself, but I have a friend who is looking for the same, and she is planning on moving to near BFE (somewhere on the Apache Junction/Mesa border) - are there such options for her?

    Also, is there a website or something listing the major metropolitan wireless freenets? Seattle Wireless shows some, but not all. Is there any such activity going on in P

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close