Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

FCC Opens More Spectrum for WISPs 98

Posted by CmdrTaco from the leveling-the-playign-field dept.
flirzan writes "Today the FCC announced that they will be opening up new spectrum for use in wireless broadband applications. The new spectrum will run from 3650-3700 Mhz, and requires that licensees register all system base stations. This is great news for wireless ISPs everywhere, as it will make interference avoidance/mitigation much easier. Licenses will run 10 years, and are renewable and transferable. No word yet on how much the licenses are expected to cost or when they'll be available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Opens More Spectrum for WISPs More

FCC Opens More Spectrum for WISPs

Comments Filter:
  • to say "All your base are belong to us."

  • what effect will that have (Score:5, Funny)

    by Transient0 ( 175617 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:01PM (#11904458) Homepage
    on the Mana Drain when they detonate?

    or their lumber collecting abilities?

  • does this mean... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If i can't get wireless internet now because of trees and too far away...i might be able to soon?
    • Not only that, if this sort of thing continues, I will be able to cook my food just by bringing it outside!
    • Regardless of extra frequencies coming into use, as with many other products, advances in technology will allow more people to utilise wireless solutions.

      Trees are very bad for wireless connections (short of mountains and the like), and distance does become an issue over 80km due to the curvature of the earth. Of course, companies such as Orthogon [orthogonsystems.com] are doing some pretty damn good stuff with non-line of sight at present.

      If this is real world you are talking, perhaps you should have mentioned the distance

      • The company I work for has started using the Orthogon Gemini radios in the last year and are testing their new Spectra radios that are touted to run something like 300 Mbps. The Gemini radios do point-to-point only in the 5.8 GHz band and act as an Ethernet bridge.

        Nice to see someone else familiar with these devices.

  • wireless modems? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by erotic_pie ( 796522 )
    so will this be the end of the cable modem and wired internet?
    • I doubt that cable or wired DSL will ever go away entirely. An aggressive local WISP will provide service beyond the areas cable won't go and wired DSL can't reach. We are fortunate to have one such WISP in this area and even though I am in range of wired DSL and cable, I signed up on the WISP last week. One thing I like is that the WISP is local so my money stays in the community not out of state to some conglomerate. Another thing is that this company is now providing wireless DSL to several rural co
    • Doubtful, the latency is a beotch.
  • Does this mean I have to take my current 3650-3700 Mhz base down?

  • They open the spectrum up for WASPs? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I knew the FCC were a bunch of uptight fundamentalist whiteys, but geez.

  • good news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:06PM (#11904512) Journal
    This is good news for companies making mobile devices with lots of storage. [slashdot.org] After all, that storage is not very useful if there isn't infrastructure (i.e.: bandwidth) available to transfer data easily.

    This might also help out community wireless attempts, since at least one part of the technology is being standardized, and the licenses are rather long (10 years).

  • Two questions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:10PM (#11904554) Homepage
    Due to my current location I cannot view the PDF.
    1. How many WISPs will a single area be able to support, or more specifically, what will be the maximum number of WISP licensees for a given area?
    2. Are there limitations on the number of WISP licenses you may hold? That is to say, would it be possible for Clear Channel or SBC or subsidiaries of either to buy up all the WISP licenses for a certain area and then just sit on them, blocking any competition from entering the market?

    • Re:Two questions (Score:5, Informative)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:16PM (#11904606) Journal
      For those who can't get the PDF, here it is in plain text:

      FCC OPENS ACCESS TO NEW SPECTRUM FOR
      WIRELESS BROADBAND IN THE 3650 MHZ BAND

      WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
      Commission) adopted rules to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3650-3700
      MHz band (3650 MHz). The Commission adopted a hybrid approach that draws from both the
      Commission's unlicensed and licensed regulatory models and provides for nationwide, non-exclusive
      licensing of terrestrial operations in the band utilizing technologies employing contention-based
      protocols. This streamlined licensing mechanism with minimal regulatory entry requirements will
      encourage multiple new entrants and stimulate the rapid expansion of wireless broadband services --
      especially in rural America -- by Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) and other entities with
      limited resources. The Commission also provided an opportunity for the introduction at 3650 MHz of a
      variety of new wireless broadband technologies, such as Wi-Max, into the band.

      Under the Commission's approach, there is no limit on the number of licenses that can be
      granted, and each licensee will be authorized to operate on a shared basis with other licensees on all 50
      megahertz of the band, subject to restrictions in geographic areas occupied by grandfathered Fixed
      Satellite Service (FSS) and Federal Government stations. Licensees will also be required to register all
      system base stations electronically with the Commission. Base station registration will enable licensees
      to locate each other's operations and will facilitate protection of grandfathered stations from interference.
      This type of licensing and registration will enable the Commission to monitor the use of this spectrum as
      new technologies and services develop.

      The Commission found that the public record developed in this proceeding supports multiple
      users sharing this spectrum through the use of "contention-based" protocols to minimize interference
      among fixed and mobile operations. New fixed and mobile stations will therefore be required to use
      contention-based protocols, which will reduce the possibility of interference from co-frequency operation
      by managing each station's access to spectrum. The Commission concluded that this approach is a
      reasonable, cost-effective method for ensuring that multiple users can access the spectrum.

      The Commission gave all licensees the mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful
      interference to one another. Mobile stations also will be required to positively receive and decode an
      enabling signal transmitted by a base station. The Commission determined that this approach will ensure
      that mobile stations operate within range of registered base stations, thereby avoiding interference to grandfathered FSS and Federal Government stations. Fixed stations will be allowed to operate with a
      peak power limit of 25 Watts per 25 megahertz bandwidth, and mobile stations with a peak power limit of
      1 Watt per 25 megahertz bandwidth.

      The Commission kept the existing allocations for the band, grandfathering previously licensed
      primary incumbent FSS earth station operations and three Federal Government radiolocation stations,
      entitling them to interference protection from new wireless licensees. To protect these incumbent
      operations, the Commission established circular protection zones around them - 150 km for FSS earth
      stations and 80 km for Federal Government stations - and prohibited new terrestrial licensees from
      operating within these zones unless they negotiate agreements with the incumbents. The Commission
      determined that new FSS stations should be allowed on a secondary basis and denied several petitions for
      reconsideration of an earlier decision in this proceeding that established the existing FSS, FS and MS
      allocations.

      The Commission also concluded that there should be no eligibility restrictions

    • Re:Two questions (Score:3, Informative)

      by josecanuc ( 91 )

      1. How many WISPs will a single area be able to support, or more specifically, what will be the maximum number of WISP licensees for a given area?

      There is not a limit on the number of licenses. This is a break in the usual FCC trend of limiting the nubmer of licenses given based on the number of "channels" that can be defined. They are doing this because of the requirement that users of this new band utilize technologies that would allow automatic interference remediation and channel-sharing techniques

    • Re:Two questions (Score:2, Informative)

      by R2.0 ( 532027 )
      There is another factor. FCC regulations require that licensees actually use their licenses. Once a license is awarded, the licensee must construct facilities within a certain time and begin service within a certain time after that - in total, about 2 years.

      If a licensee doesn't use the frequency or hasn't constructed, the license effectively comes up for grabs on a first come-first served basis. This is called a "finder's preference," where whoever rats out the non-performing licensee to the FCC gets f
    • This is just a money making scheme - the FCC will MONITOR only. They won't actually do anything. In other words, they will sell as many licenses as there are takers...

  • Good Thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:11PM (#11904563)
    This is surely a good thing, WISP's are currently operating using the ISM and UNII bands with extremely low EIRP levels.

    The new rules are as follows:

    "Fixed stations will be allowed to operate with a peak power limit of 25 Watts per 25 megahertz bandwidth, and mobile stations with a peak power limit of 1 Watt per 25 megahertz bandwidth."

  • How much of the spectrum is left (Score:3, Funny)

    by tecker ( 793737 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:12PM (#11904574) Homepage
    Just how much of the spectrum is left for the FCC to pass out. And who dictates the spectrum elsewhere? Not to sound all Anti-American but the fcc is not all powerful.

    Wait, are they?

    • Re:How much of the spectrum is left (Score:5, Informative)

      by MonMotha ( 514624 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:19PM (#11904630)
      For the upper bands, the local governments have quite a bit of say in how thigns are alloted due to the fact that those signals just don't go very far beyond line of sight under normal circumstances. There are some exceptions that are dictated by the ITU and the US pays attention to those. These exceptions are mostly for research quiet zones (and those are pretty small), non geo-sync sats, etc.

      The HF bands (which readily propagate around the world), VHF and lower UHF (which can propagate distances significantly beyond those you would expect) have some ITU regulations attached to them. The FCC does pay attention to these international regulations of the RF spectrum.

      The US also has agreements regarding allocations up in the microwave ranges along its borders with other nations to avoid interference.

  • Wireless infrastructure spectrum (Score:4, Informative)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:12PM (#11904581)
    There should be several calsses of spectrum for WIFI data transit.

    one spectrum range would be for station-to-station communications

    one spectrum can be for user-to-station communications

    one spectrum can be for user-to-user communications.

    I am not a wireless engineer, so i dont know what frequencies are suitable for for what distances etc, but you should have one range for high-bandwidth medium-long range. (such as the spectrums mentioned here)

    So multiple channels in a particular cell, in such a number of channels where you dont overlap channels in adjacent cells. (802.11[n])

    Next you would have less bandwidth, more available channels and medium range. Finally you would have short range, medium badnwidth limited channels.... (bluetooth etc)

    • There should be several calsses of spectrum for WIFI data transit.

      one spectrum range would be for station-to-station communications

      one spectrum can be for user-to-station communications

      one spectrum can be for user-to-user communications.

      Great, so if all your traffic falls into one of those classes, you only get 1/3 throughput. Next idea, please.

      The U-NII band is already divided into low-power, medium-power, and high-power subbands. It's not clear whether people are benefiting from this arrangement o
    • With any wireless system the spectrum is divided in a similar way. For example, in cellular phone systems there are chunks of bandwidth set aside for control channels, the base station to mobile link, and the mobile to base station link. Often times these chunks are all fairly close to each other (within the same general band).

      separating the frequency range for different applications is not necessarily a good idea - having the devices intelligently use the spectrum they see is a key issue. Also, the mod
    • I am not a wireless engineer, so i dont know what frequencies are suitable for for what distances etc, but you should have one range for high-bandwidth medium-long range. (such as the spectrums mentioned here)

      To answer your question, the higher you go on the mhz chart, the more data you can push over the spectrum. Conversely, the lower you go on the mhz chart, the better you go through objects.

      Of the widely used channels:

      900 mhz -- low data, best for non-line of sight
      2.4 ghz -- high data, sensitive to
  • With licenses valid for ten years, they will likely cost the same as cellular licenses. Millions of dollars! They may even have to do lotteries like they do with the cellular providers.

    • Re:Prices (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:21PM (#11904654) Homepage Journal
      The key word here is "non-exclusive"... they're not treating it as property this time, more like the the town commons. If this works the way I think it will, there will be a low fee to cover administrative overhead, just like the Amateur Radio service.

      Nobody is going to pay millions of dollars to have to cooperate and share... millions are only payed when a monopoly is guaranteed.

      --Mike--

      • The key word here is "non-exclusive"... they're not treating it as property this time, more like the the town commons. If this works the way I think it will, there will be a low fee to cover administrative overhead, just like the Amateur Radio service.

        Nobody is going to pay millions of dollars to have to cooperate and share... millions are only payed when a monopoly is guaranteed.

        Unfortunately, some of the protocols (like WiMAX) assign timeslots. That means somebody arbitrates the timeslots. That someb
    • This news would be great for Muni WiFi, except
      that all the telcos are already spending all their
      money buying states' legislators for their endrun
      around public access WiFi.

      Don't suppose that the FCC might lend NASA some
      of the cash raised by the sale of radio spectrum
      to keep the Voyager team together for a few more
      years.

      Oops! Dubya needs that money to fund his latest
      propaganda campaign for Social Security reform.
  • Perhaps this would allow for citywide coverage using only your 802.11g card?

    How will 802.11s come in to play here?

    It would be damn nice if I could go to a coffee shop other than starbucks to get wireless internet with my morning drink.
    • Wha? My morning drink is usually a soda on the run because I was up till 3 the previous night behind the keyboard, coding away...

    • Re:wisps (Score:2)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      I don't really know but I slightly suspect this would be somewhat more intended for use with 802.16 [google.com]?
    • Perhaps this would allow for citywide coverage using only your 802.11g card?

      No, because 802.11 does not operate in this band.

      How will 802.11s come in to play here?

      It won't; see above.

      It would be damn nice if I could go to a coffee shop other than starbucks to get wireless internet with my morning drink.

      Have you tried EDGE or EV-DO?
    • Where do you live? Starbucks' wireless isn't even free. Here in Milwaukee there are several local/independent coffee shop chains (Node, Stone Creek, Alterra, etc), not to mention deli/burger/sub/bagel chains (Blue Dawg, Bakers' Square, Qdoba, Jimmy John's), and it seems like almost all of them have wi-fi or are within range of the network of the franchise next door. Just do some looking around; even if you're in a small town (under 50,000) I'll bet there are still a lot of places like this.
    • Not likely, I work with a non-profit WISP, and frequency in this range doesnt work to well at distance if you put anything at all in the way of you and the signal. What is truely needed for wisps is spectrum in the lower levels (around the 800-900 used by most cell phone networks) as this goes 'through' trees and such much better.

      Currently we operate in the nonlicensed 900mhz range and the interference is often horrible
  • Can someone please tell what bandwidth would be available to the humble end user in this frequency range? By bandwidth I really mean bits per second. I am assuming that customers would compete for the same bandwidth and be capped somehow. What would this cap be? More/less than current cable modem allowances?
    Inquiring minds need to know.
    Thanks.
    • Can someone please tell what bandwidth would be available to the humble end user in this frequency range? By bandwidth I really mean bits per second. I am assuming that customers would compete for the same bandwidth and be capped somehow

      This all depends on the hardware in use, and how the network has been designed, built, and implemented. We have 3GHz in use here (licensed frequency), and end users from companies such as Wired Country [wiredcountry.co.nz] are easily able to draw down 2Mbit/s and more.

      Whilst by no means hug

    • i know what my company does and we don't limit our bandwith at the end user most users see about 4500kbits both up and down, but if i understand the tech, then we should be able to give the end user about 15000kbits up and down

  • Good. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by detritus. ( 46421 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:21PM (#11904659)
    Wireless Broadband Providers: You have your spectrum play-pen, now do yourselves a favor, and get the hell off the ISM bands with your 802.11x crap for your commercial endeavors. Thank you.
    • Right after you get off the Oxygen band for your respiratory functions.

      Commons means ISPs, too. We aren't all AOLs or Earthlinks, thank you.

  • Only 50 MHz of radio real estate (Score:5, Informative)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:21PM (#11904667)
    The total bandwidth seems small, only 50 MHz which is less than the 94 MHz of space available for 802.11b. Throw in the need for non-overlapping channels, interference, etc. and this version of wireless broadband will probably offer less bandwidth that original WiFi.

    I can only hope that the higher emitted power will let service providers boost SNR (rather than space-out the antennas further) to provide more digital bandwidth within their limited radio bandwidth allotment.
    • That's enough for at least two non-overlapping channels. 802.11n has specs offering over 75 MB per 20 mhz non-overlapping channel and over 400 MB for a 40 mhz channel.

      This isn't ground breaking, but it is one more tool in the aresenal potentially.
    • This band looks like it's more compatible with 902.16 than 802.11. 802.16 has a much higher SNDR than 802.11, and, therefore, you'll get more datat throughput, even with less bandwidth.

  • Lease vs. Sell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:35PM (#11904782) Homepage
    Isn't it interesting that when dealing with bands the huge companies don't want, the spectrum is licensed on a renewable basis, while spectrum that is particularly valuable (to the public that owns it) is sold out-right to big conglomerates?

    ALL spectrum should be licensed like this new band is supposed to be. Viacom can afford it, believe me.
    • Uh, ALL spectrum is renewable. The rights to some spectrum is auctioned off to the highest bidder, with the proceeds going to the general fund. There are some notable exceptions, like the HDTV spectrum "swap."

      So are you objecting to making the richest corporations pay the most money for licenses, or the fact that anybody pays anything for licenses?
  • Sure, it's great news if you want to buy a license from the government for what could have been unlicensed spectrum, like the nearby 2.4GHz WiFi band. Or if you are a financed "first mover" who will "pioneer" the band, if it's unlicensed, and get a perpetual permit to control that band in that geography - even if the real apps come later, and have to pay you to play.

    This could have been a boon to P2P mesh networks communities, which depend on unlicensed spectrum to exist. Instead, it's another carve-out of

    • Re:Private Band (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chill ( 34294 )
      It specifies non-exclusive usage, meaning you can't stake out a section of geography as exclusively yours. Buy a chunk in an area with hopes of "building" later and you'll just lose your money.

      Non-exlcusive usage means the prices for the licenses should be low -- mostly "maintenance" fees. (Supply isn't really limited.)

      And at 25 Watts of power for fixed stations, it makes sense so they can build a database where people can look up fixed locations for coverage, etc.

      So lighten up.

      -Charles

      • Re:Private Band (Score:3, Informative)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Actually, lots of other people have identified the specific problems [wetmachine.com] this kind of licensing poses for low power apps, like WiFi mesh, that offer real local community value. Shortsighted dismissal of that conflict plays right into the hands of large corporate interests, like Intel's [fcc.gov], which were protected by this process, despite lots of public opposition.
  • They will hack the tin foil hats whatever... never give up until you succeed.

  • more tinfoil (Score:4, Funny)

    by SpongeBobLinuxPants ( 840979 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:52PM (#11904943) Homepage
    The new spectrum will run from 3650-3700 Mhz

    Guess I'll need to add another layer to my tinfoil hat.

  • Any news on UHF Spectrum? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday March 10, 2005 @06:02PM (#11905036) Homepage Journal
    There was some talk a while back about allowing WISP's into unused UHF spectrum.

    Most rural areas have next to no UHF TV channels and very poor broadband availability. It was hoped this would take advantage of that reality by allowing good hill-following spectrum to be available for rural Internet users, on a renewable basis that would give preference to new UHF TV stations (as if).

    No jokes about pig porn, please.

  • Ever hear of BRS (Broadband Radio Services)? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by n9mdh ( 800649 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @06:10PM (#11905096)
    The FCC regulates the Broadband Radio Services (BRS). This is (now) typically broadband internet access, and happens in from 2.495 GHz to 2.690 GHz, and uses spectrum formerly set aside for (oxymoron alert) wireless cable TV. You, too can get a license in this band for a $230 filing fee, today.

    There is another band, 3.400 GHz to 3.600 GHz that's also currently set up for licensed wireless data, a la wi-fi. I don't have a link to this service unfortunately.

    What the new announcement from the FCC adds to the party is something similar to GMRS or business band radios-- shared spectrum open only to licensed users. TFA mentions Part 90 as the section of rules that will cover this new spectrum. That's the same section of rules that covers business band radios (and whose licenses cost $100-ish). I would also expect frequency coordination to come into play at some point with this new service, just like you have with other Part 90 services. (Coordination tries to prevent harmful interference and squabbling.)
    • Broadband Radio Service isn't what you think it is. Existing licenses were largely granted by lottery, before auctions were allowed, or later by auction. They were indeed called "wireless cable"; HBO was a big item back in the 1980s. A few video systems are still running there. Licenses were usually on a per-transmitter basis, but some were on a geographic-area basis (BTA, if I recall).

      The rules were changed last year; the names "MDS" and "MMDS" were merged into "BRS". The adjacent "ITFS" channels, used
      • First, the old and new band plans [fcc.gov] would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

        The realignment of the band is un [fcc.gov]

  • Nobody has mentioned... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skogs ( 628589 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @06:18PM (#11905150) Journal
    the obvious things yet.

    What exactly is the expected propogation with 25watts at 3.xx Ghz? How far will it transmit information?

    How fast is any proposed standard for using this spectrum? Surely somebody had a plan, and submitted it with their request for spectrum. What is the standard and how fast is it?

    What are the channel allocations within that same proposed standard? While 50Mhz doesn't seem like a big spread, it is not difficult to actually engineer something that is selective enough to work on the half Mhz. That would allow 50 one way, and 50 another way.

    Overall I find this story leaves more questions asked than answered. When this is actually implemented in 4-7 years, will it revolutionize wireless, or simply be a bottleneck loosener?

    • What exactly is the expected propogation with 25watts at 3.xx Ghz? How far will it transmit information?

      It's gotta be better than 1W at 5.8GHz that people are using now.

      How fast is any proposed standard for using this spectrum?

      WISPs will probably use 802.16, which can theoretically provide over 100Mbps in 50MHz.

      What are the channel allocations within that same proposed standard?

      It looks like there are none, so licensees can do whatever they want.

  • Big Deal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bananahead ( 829691 )
    A 50Mhz channel in the 3Ghz space is not going to change the world of wireless. The spectrum won't propogate worth a crap and 50MHz is not enough to really solve bandwidth or channel interference issues. It will be as noisy as 2.4 and won't work as well.
    • Read the WiMax spec, and then see if your opinion changes.
      • I have read the WiMax spec, and it scares the hell out of me that anyone is buying it. It is promising both bandwidth AND range in a set of spectrums that will have a hard time delivering on one, let alone both. The range claims are nothing more than Intel smoke, or Intel smoking as the case may be, and the bandwidth claims are a fraud. There may be a reason you don't see much of it out there. Don't believe everything you read, Intel is running very scared right now because of the hype their marketing e
  • When the noise in your neighborhood gets to be too much for you with everyone having an access point, do the following: 1. Take the door off of your microwave oven. 2. Place in backyard. 3. Turn on for 20 seconds. 4. Remeasure You should find that you have the neighborhood to yourself (except for those annoying 802.11a people)
  • Pwah! I don't need to RTFA to know it's a hoax.
    If there really was a new Spectrum coming, and especially if it was going to run from 3650-3700 Mhz, these guys [sinclair-research.co.uk] would be the first to tell us.
  • I wonder why they're requiring all AP's to be registered.

    Is there a reason that all of the new techology runs on higher 2.4Ghz spectrum and not lower frequencies? Is there a correlation or is it just how things have worked out?

    If there's a correlation, it could be the FCC pre-empting wi-fi regulation by laying down the rules before future technology is adopted.

    It's the government afterall, so the FCC would likely know about new technology long before we consumers would.

    What if the next-gen WiFi devices
    • It's so that the incumbent users can be protected from interference. The FCC will deny the license if it would cause harmful interference to an incumbent user.

      It's a clever scheme. By controlling the locations of fixed APs, they can prevent interference from mobile users.

  • I live in Houston, slum-capital of the world. I doubt the 5th ward with their crack-smokin' mommas and their homey gang-banga boyfriends, cuz each woman's got at least 2, needs broadband wireless. I mean, c'mon G, I ain'tz gotta look up on AOL hows to blast a cap in some n*gga's ass! I jus pull up to his girl's bumpa and tell him to drop them Nike's off his ass before I blast that mutha!

    Cities need to re-evaluate their expenditures before jumping on the broadbandwagon (to coin a word). Raising taxes (b

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close