Player Council Formed to Advise Goodell
By Associated Press
NEW YORK -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has established a six-member council of veteran players to advise him on a variety of issues, including player conduct.
Most of the players named to the council, which includes players union president Troy Vincent, met this week with Goodell on the same day the commissioner heard from Adam "Pacman" Jones of Tennessee and Chris Henry of Cincinnati to discuss their off-field problems. He is expected to announce disciplinary action next week.
It will meet regularly with Goodell and Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association to talk about a variety of issues, including player safety, health issues and competition.
"It is important that we know the perspective of players on issues that impact our game and our league," Goodell said in a statement issued by the league.
"We all share the same goal of improving the NFL in every way we can. Veteran leadership is critically important for our teams in many areas. These outstanding veterans can help the entire league just as they help their teams."
The group includes Vincent, currently a free agent, along with safety Donovin Darius of Jacksonville; fullback Tony Richardson of Minnesota; center Jeff Saturday of Indianapolis; linebacker Takeo Spikes of Philadelphia and wide receiver James Thrash of Washington.
The establishment of the council is consistent with the way Goodell has worked since taking over from Paul Tagliabue last September. He spent the early part of his tenure visiting teams and talking with owners, officials and players to get a feel for the league.
"This is the first time in NFL history that a commissioner has used a group of current players in an advisory capacity," Upshaw said. "The players are a great resource for our game and this is a direct way of getting their input. This is a good example of how the new commissioner is leading through strong communication. We appreciate what he is doing."
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Ricky Williams Applies for Reinstatement
Ricky Williams Applies for Reinstatement
By DAVE GOLDBERG-AP
NEW YORK -- Ricky Williams, the former NFL star who played in Canada last season after being suspended for a year for substance abuse, has applied for reinstatement. Williams' agent, Leigh Steinberg, said the running back, who will turn 30 in May, had sent a letter asking that he be allowed to return to the Miami Dolphins.
The NFL confirmed that Williams had sought reinstatement, for which he will be eligible after April 27, when he will have been suspended for a year. Dolphins spokesman Harvey Greene said the team had no comment because Williams is not yet eligible for reinstatement.
Williams, a former Heisman Trophy winner at Texas, was originally drafted by New Orleans when then-coach Mike Ditka gave up all his picks in the 1999 draft to get his rights. He was traded to Miami for two first-round draft picks after the 2001 season and rushed for 1,853 yards for the Dolphins in 2002 and 1,372 the next season.
But he abruptly retired shortly before training camp in 2004, then returned in 2005 to back up rookie Ronnie Brown. Williams rushed for 743 yards and a 4.4 yard average that year.
The suspension, handed down last year by former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, was Williams' fourth.
Williams' previous positive drug tests were for marijuana, which he acknowledged using. The latest test apparently involved a substance other than marijuana and may have been related to his interest in holistic medicine.
Steinberg said Williams has been teaching yoga in California since returning from Canada last December.
"He's told me that his interest in eastern philosophy has overcome his desire for mind-altering substances and has given him another outlet," Steinberg said. "He's in outstanding shape and he hasn't taken a lot of hits for a running back. I think he's still at the top of his game."
During the 2005 season, Williams laughingly described himself as weird and compared his career to a roller coaster. But he also dispelled his reputation as an aloof, selfish pothead, winning praise from teammates and winning the south Florida media's annual postseason Good Guy Award, given to the player most cooperative with reporters.
Williams has gained 7,097 yards in 1,757 carries during his NFL career and rushed for 47 touchdowns.
Last season with Toronto in the CFL, he ran for 526 yards on 109 carries and caught 19 passes for 127 yards. He missed two months because of a broken arm.
By DAVE GOLDBERG-AP
NEW YORK -- Ricky Williams, the former NFL star who played in Canada last season after being suspended for a year for substance abuse, has applied for reinstatement. Williams' agent, Leigh Steinberg, said the running back, who will turn 30 in May, had sent a letter asking that he be allowed to return to the Miami Dolphins.
The NFL confirmed that Williams had sought reinstatement, for which he will be eligible after April 27, when he will have been suspended for a year. Dolphins spokesman Harvey Greene said the team had no comment because Williams is not yet eligible for reinstatement.
Williams, a former Heisman Trophy winner at Texas, was originally drafted by New Orleans when then-coach Mike Ditka gave up all his picks in the 1999 draft to get his rights. He was traded to Miami for two first-round draft picks after the 2001 season and rushed for 1,853 yards for the Dolphins in 2002 and 1,372 the next season.
But he abruptly retired shortly before training camp in 2004, then returned in 2005 to back up rookie Ronnie Brown. Williams rushed for 743 yards and a 4.4 yard average that year.
The suspension, handed down last year by former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, was Williams' fourth.
Williams' previous positive drug tests were for marijuana, which he acknowledged using. The latest test apparently involved a substance other than marijuana and may have been related to his interest in holistic medicine.
Steinberg said Williams has been teaching yoga in California since returning from Canada last December.
"He's told me that his interest in eastern philosophy has overcome his desire for mind-altering substances and has given him another outlet," Steinberg said. "He's in outstanding shape and he hasn't taken a lot of hits for a running back. I think he's still at the top of his game."
During the 2005 season, Williams laughingly described himself as weird and compared his career to a roller coaster. But he also dispelled his reputation as an aloof, selfish pothead, winning praise from teammates and winning the south Florida media's annual postseason Good Guy Award, given to the player most cooperative with reporters.
Williams has gained 7,097 yards in 1,757 carries during his NFL career and rushed for 47 touchdowns.
Last season with Toronto in the CFL, he ran for 526 yards on 109 carries and caught 19 passes for 127 yards. He missed two months because of a broken arm.
Rumor: Matt Leinart Not Happy With CAA - Profootballtalk.com
LEINART LOOKING FOR NEW A MARKETING REP
On Friday, USA Today ran a front-page story on the growing power and influence of Creative Artists Agency , which has amassed a host of A-list entertainers and athletes in the past year.
The story fails to point out one potentially relevant fact.
Per a league source, the powerhouse agency is in danger of losing its lock on the marketing dollars to be generated by former USC quarterback Matt Leinart, the 2004 Heisman winner and starting quarterback for the Arizona Cardinals.
The source tells us that Leinart recently informed CAA of his decision, but that he has not yet hired a new firm. In the interim, CAA is trying hard to keep him.
As the source observed, it could be that CAA is growing too fast without the right people in place to handle the workload.
On Friday, USA Today ran a front-page story on the growing power and influence of Creative Artists Agency , which has amassed a host of A-list entertainers and athletes in the past year.
The story fails to point out one potentially relevant fact.
Per a league source, the powerhouse agency is in danger of losing its lock on the marketing dollars to be generated by former USC quarterback Matt Leinart, the 2004 Heisman winner and starting quarterback for the Arizona Cardinals.
The source tells us that Leinart recently informed CAA of his decision, but that he has not yet hired a new firm. In the interim, CAA is trying hard to keep him.
As the source observed, it could be that CAA is growing too fast without the right people in place to handle the workload.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly Fox News Argument - Video
Well, this is called great television. Not scripted, or ..maybe it was? Perhaps it was planned.
Immigration shoutfest
TV's Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera generate much heat, if not light, on the subject
Howard Kurtz, Washington Post
Saturday, April 7, 2007
(04-07) 04:00 PDT Washington -- It felt as if you had wandered into a barroom brawl, people were cowering under their tables, and the only question was when someone would get smashed with a broken beer bottle.
It was the battle of cable goliaths, Geraldo Rivera vs. Bill O'Reilly, a trash-talking, vein-popping, finger-thrusting shoutfest complete with cries of "Cool your jets!" and "That's bull!"
The rising decibel level Thursday night on "The O'Reilly Factor," an arena not exactly renowned for delicate discussion, was an instant YouTube classic as the two Fox fighters went at it on the subject of illegal immigration.
Rivera did what few guests dare in the "No-Spin Zone" -- accuse the host of making "a cheap political point." O'Reilly, undeterred, said Rivera wanted "open-border anarchy." And although Rivera didn't get his nose broken, as happened during a 1988 scuffle with a neo-Nazi guest on his old syndicated talk show, both men were clearly fuming.
"This is the courtroom scene from 'A Few Good Men' after a case of Red Bull with the volume knob cranked to 11," said Matthew Felling, an analyst with the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "Add to that the surreality of Geraldo being the voice of reason, and it's the oddest video you'll watch a dozen times."
The dustup involved a drunken driver, with three previous alcohol-related convictions, who killed two teenagers in the Virginia Beach, Va., area last month and has been charged with manslaughter.
In his opening commentary, O'Reilly said the driver was an illegal alien from Mexico, and he assailed the city's mayor for what he said was a policy of not reporting those in this country illegally to federal authorities. He included a clip of the mayor, Meyera Oberndorf, saying Virginia Beach has adopted no policy making it a "sanctuary city," as O'Reilly called it.
Rivera, a regular guest on the show, immediately challenged the premise, saying there were 347 drunken-driving fatalities in Virginia in 2005 and adding, "The only reason it's news on 'The Factor' is because the driver was an illegal alien."
Rivera said O'Reilly should apologize to the mayor.
As they sparred over whether the drunken driver should have been deported earlier, O'Reilly observed that Rivera has teenage daughters and asked whether he approved of "somebody sneaking into the country, becoming drunk, (getting) convicted of a DUI and staying here?"
Rivera, whose father is from Puerto Rico, countered: "It could be a Jewish drunk. It could be a Polish drunk. ... What the hell difference does it make?"
"It makes plenty of difference!" O'Reilly shouted, grimacing. "He doesn't have a right to be in this country! ... He should have been deported!"
"It's a cheap political point," Rivera roared back.
"No, it isn't."
"And you know it!"
"This is justice! ... And you want anarchy," O'Reilly said.
As they glared at each other, Rivera said, "What I want is fairness."
"Fairness? Bull!" O'Reilly said.
Rivera said illegal aliens had been "lured" to this country with the promise of jobs in a full-employment economy.
"Do you want your viewers to go knocking on people's door, door to door?" he asked.
"Oh, bull. That's bull," O'Reilly said.
But it was television, after all, so O'Reilly closed by plugging Rivera's weekend show, and Rivera said it was wonderful that Fox was fair and balanced on the issue.
A Fox News spokeswoman had no comment and said the combatants were not available.
Critics were quick to score the contest. "I feel like Geraldo comes off really normal and making good points," said Jessica Shaw, senior writer at Entertainment Weekly. "He's finally found the perfect foil. Did it shed any light on immigration reform? Of course not."
Immigration shoutfest
TV's Bill O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera generate much heat, if not light, on the subject
Howard Kurtz, Washington Post
Saturday, April 7, 2007
(04-07) 04:00 PDT Washington -- It felt as if you had wandered into a barroom brawl, people were cowering under their tables, and the only question was when someone would get smashed with a broken beer bottle.
It was the battle of cable goliaths, Geraldo Rivera vs. Bill O'Reilly, a trash-talking, vein-popping, finger-thrusting shoutfest complete with cries of "Cool your jets!" and "That's bull!"
The rising decibel level Thursday night on "The O'Reilly Factor," an arena not exactly renowned for delicate discussion, was an instant YouTube classic as the two Fox fighters went at it on the subject of illegal immigration.
Rivera did what few guests dare in the "No-Spin Zone" -- accuse the host of making "a cheap political point." O'Reilly, undeterred, said Rivera wanted "open-border anarchy." And although Rivera didn't get his nose broken, as happened during a 1988 scuffle with a neo-Nazi guest on his old syndicated talk show, both men were clearly fuming.
"This is the courtroom scene from 'A Few Good Men' after a case of Red Bull with the volume knob cranked to 11," said Matthew Felling, an analyst with the Center for Media and Public Affairs. "Add to that the surreality of Geraldo being the voice of reason, and it's the oddest video you'll watch a dozen times."
The dustup involved a drunken driver, with three previous alcohol-related convictions, who killed two teenagers in the Virginia Beach, Va., area last month and has been charged with manslaughter.
In his opening commentary, O'Reilly said the driver was an illegal alien from Mexico, and he assailed the city's mayor for what he said was a policy of not reporting those in this country illegally to federal authorities. He included a clip of the mayor, Meyera Oberndorf, saying Virginia Beach has adopted no policy making it a "sanctuary city," as O'Reilly called it.
Rivera, a regular guest on the show, immediately challenged the premise, saying there were 347 drunken-driving fatalities in Virginia in 2005 and adding, "The only reason it's news on 'The Factor' is because the driver was an illegal alien."
Rivera said O'Reilly should apologize to the mayor.
As they sparred over whether the drunken driver should have been deported earlier, O'Reilly observed that Rivera has teenage daughters and asked whether he approved of "somebody sneaking into the country, becoming drunk, (getting) convicted of a DUI and staying here?"
Rivera, whose father is from Puerto Rico, countered: "It could be a Jewish drunk. It could be a Polish drunk. ... What the hell difference does it make?"
"It makes plenty of difference!" O'Reilly shouted, grimacing. "He doesn't have a right to be in this country! ... He should have been deported!"
"It's a cheap political point," Rivera roared back.
"No, it isn't."
"And you know it!"
"This is justice! ... And you want anarchy," O'Reilly said.
As they glared at each other, Rivera said, "What I want is fairness."
"Fairness? Bull!" O'Reilly said.
Rivera said illegal aliens had been "lured" to this country with the promise of jobs in a full-employment economy.
"Do you want your viewers to go knocking on people's door, door to door?" he asked.
"Oh, bull. That's bull," O'Reilly said.
But it was television, after all, so O'Reilly closed by plugging Rivera's weekend show, and Rivera said it was wonderful that Fox was fair and balanced on the issue.
A Fox News spokeswoman had no comment and said the combatants were not available.
Critics were quick to score the contest. "I feel like Geraldo comes off really normal and making good points," said Jessica Shaw, senior writer at Entertainment Weekly. "He's finally found the perfect foil. Did it shed any light on immigration reform? Of course not."
Friday, April 06, 2007
Oakland Raiders Seek To Reopen NFL Lawsuit - My Take
Raiders seek to reinstate $1.2 billion suit against NFL
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article
(04-03) 12:08 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Oakland Raiders will be looking to snap a legal losing streak Wednesday when they ask the state Supreme Court to reinstate a $1.2 billion suit that accuses the National Football League of forcing the team out of Los Angeles in 1995 by sabotaging plans for a new stadium.
The court's ruling, due in 90 days, isn't likely to affect the team's location -- its lease in Oakland runs through 2011, and the Raiders and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority have expressed interest in negotiating an extension.
But the verdict could resolve Raider headman Al Davis' long-standing claim that his plans to keep the team in the larger and more lucrative Southern California market were undermined by league officials' ill-will toward him.
The Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982 after winning an antitrust suit against the NFL, which opposed the shift. They returned to Oakland in 1995 after trying to relocate from the cavernous Los Angeles Coliseum to a planned new stadium at Hollywood Park in suburban Inglewood, which was never built.
A separate legal dispute with Oakland authorities began two years later, when city and county officials accused the team of trying to break its lease and the Raiders countersued for fraud, claiming they had been misled about advance ticket sales.
The Raiders sought $833 million in that suit, but a Sacramento jury awarded them only $34.2 million, and a state appeals court wiped out those damages in November. The court said the team had waived its right to sue when it negotiated a new contract with the Oakland Coliseum in 1996 after learning the truth about slow ticket sales.
In the case to be heard by the high court Wednesday in Los Angeles, the Raiders claimed that the NFL caused the Hollywood Park negotiations to fail by insisting on unacceptable conditions, including a requirement that the Raiders share the stadium with another team.
The lawsuit sought $500 million in damages for the failure of the stadium deal and $700 million for the right to put a new team in Los Angeles, which has not had an NFL franchise since 1995.
After a 10-week trial, which included five days of testimony by Davis, a Los Angeles jury issued a 9-3 verdict in 2001 finding no wrongdoing by the NFL. But Superior Court Judge Richard Hubbell granted the Raiders a new trial in 2002, finding jury misconduct.
According to juror declarations submitted by the Raiders, one panel member said during deliberations that he hated Davis and the team, and would never award them damages, because he once lost a bet on them. Another juror, a lawyer, told her fellow panelists about the legal rules they had to follow in a way that differed from the judge's instructions, the Raiders said.
The first juror said in a declaration that he had only been joking to ease tensions in the jury room, and the second juror denied giving legal instructions to others. Hubbell did not specify which actions were misconduct.
His ruling was overturned in June 2005 by a state appeals court, which said the Raiders had failed to show that either juror did anything wrong. The court quoted several jurors as saying they had never heard any expression of bias from the juror who supposedly hated the Raiders. The second juror's denials were supported by other jury members, the court said.
"When faced with such conflicting evidence, courts generally deny motions for a new trial,'' because the losing side in the case has the burden of proving that the jury verdict should be set aside, the three-judge panel said.
But the Raiders' lawyers said conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the trial judge rather than by an appellate court, which reviewed only a written record.
"There is substantial evidence of egregious and prejudicial juror misconduct,'' the team's attorneys said in written arguments to the state Supreme Court. They said only Hubbell, the trial judge, could determine who was telling the truth -- the juror who said he was joking about hating the Raiders, or other jurors who said it didn't appear to be a joke.
Lawyers for the NFL countered that Hubbell's failure to specify the juror misconduct prevented any meaningful review of his ruling by a higher court and justified the appellate panel's reinstatement of the jury verdict. The Raiders' lawyers replied that the high court, if it has any doubts, should return the case to Hubbell to clarify his ruling.
The case is Oakland Raiders vs. National Football League, S132814.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
With all due respect to Mr. Davis, he's misguided on this.
The basic problem is that the documents show Mr. Davis tried to play both sides -- NFL and Oakland -- in a way that he got the stadium he desired.
It's well-known amoung those like me who were first covering the issue and later -- in my case -- involved in it, that Mr. Davis stalled signing the Oakland agreement to see if he could get a better deal at Hollywood Park.
I do wish the organization wasn't so populated with "yes" people, as they're not countering the perceptions Mr. Davis is coming up with.
I understand he hates to lose, but the Raiders made a TON of tactical errors in this case, and didn't gain my support as some of the people were trying to undermine our Super Bowl - Oakland effort.
Attacking the NFL just reopens that case, BUT now with a twist -- they lost to Oakland. The Raiders tried to tie them together at first, but that did not work at all. In other words, we sue the NFL for tampering with our Oakland move, then sue Oakland for not giving us all we believed we were getting.
But now, Oakland's given them what they wanted, and because of that it was clear the NFL was not tampering, but the Raiders were creating the climate for things to look that way.
Not right at all.
Now, Mr. Davis wants to unravel all of that, and have egg on the face of the team yet again.
All I can say is his evidence better be water-tight this time.
I seriously doubt it is.
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article
(04-03) 12:08 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Oakland Raiders will be looking to snap a legal losing streak Wednesday when they ask the state Supreme Court to reinstate a $1.2 billion suit that accuses the National Football League of forcing the team out of Los Angeles in 1995 by sabotaging plans for a new stadium.
The court's ruling, due in 90 days, isn't likely to affect the team's location -- its lease in Oakland runs through 2011, and the Raiders and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority have expressed interest in negotiating an extension.
But the verdict could resolve Raider headman Al Davis' long-standing claim that his plans to keep the team in the larger and more lucrative Southern California market were undermined by league officials' ill-will toward him.
The Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles in 1982 after winning an antitrust suit against the NFL, which opposed the shift. They returned to Oakland in 1995 after trying to relocate from the cavernous Los Angeles Coliseum to a planned new stadium at Hollywood Park in suburban Inglewood, which was never built.
A separate legal dispute with Oakland authorities began two years later, when city and county officials accused the team of trying to break its lease and the Raiders countersued for fraud, claiming they had been misled about advance ticket sales.
The Raiders sought $833 million in that suit, but a Sacramento jury awarded them only $34.2 million, and a state appeals court wiped out those damages in November. The court said the team had waived its right to sue when it negotiated a new contract with the Oakland Coliseum in 1996 after learning the truth about slow ticket sales.
In the case to be heard by the high court Wednesday in Los Angeles, the Raiders claimed that the NFL caused the Hollywood Park negotiations to fail by insisting on unacceptable conditions, including a requirement that the Raiders share the stadium with another team.
The lawsuit sought $500 million in damages for the failure of the stadium deal and $700 million for the right to put a new team in Los Angeles, which has not had an NFL franchise since 1995.
After a 10-week trial, which included five days of testimony by Davis, a Los Angeles jury issued a 9-3 verdict in 2001 finding no wrongdoing by the NFL. But Superior Court Judge Richard Hubbell granted the Raiders a new trial in 2002, finding jury misconduct.
According to juror declarations submitted by the Raiders, one panel member said during deliberations that he hated Davis and the team, and would never award them damages, because he once lost a bet on them. Another juror, a lawyer, told her fellow panelists about the legal rules they had to follow in a way that differed from the judge's instructions, the Raiders said.
The first juror said in a declaration that he had only been joking to ease tensions in the jury room, and the second juror denied giving legal instructions to others. Hubbell did not specify which actions were misconduct.
His ruling was overturned in June 2005 by a state appeals court, which said the Raiders had failed to show that either juror did anything wrong. The court quoted several jurors as saying they had never heard any expression of bias from the juror who supposedly hated the Raiders. The second juror's denials were supported by other jury members, the court said.
"When faced with such conflicting evidence, courts generally deny motions for a new trial,'' because the losing side in the case has the burden of proving that the jury verdict should be set aside, the three-judge panel said.
But the Raiders' lawyers said conflicts in the evidence must be resolved by the trial judge rather than by an appellate court, which reviewed only a written record.
"There is substantial evidence of egregious and prejudicial juror misconduct,'' the team's attorneys said in written arguments to the state Supreme Court. They said only Hubbell, the trial judge, could determine who was telling the truth -- the juror who said he was joking about hating the Raiders, or other jurors who said it didn't appear to be a joke.
Lawyers for the NFL countered that Hubbell's failure to specify the juror misconduct prevented any meaningful review of his ruling by a higher court and justified the appellate panel's reinstatement of the jury verdict. The Raiders' lawyers replied that the high court, if it has any doubts, should return the case to Hubbell to clarify his ruling.
The case is Oakland Raiders vs. National Football League, S132814.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
With all due respect to Mr. Davis, he's misguided on this.
The basic problem is that the documents show Mr. Davis tried to play both sides -- NFL and Oakland -- in a way that he got the stadium he desired.
It's well-known amoung those like me who were first covering the issue and later -- in my case -- involved in it, that Mr. Davis stalled signing the Oakland agreement to see if he could get a better deal at Hollywood Park.
I do wish the organization wasn't so populated with "yes" people, as they're not countering the perceptions Mr. Davis is coming up with.
I understand he hates to lose, but the Raiders made a TON of tactical errors in this case, and didn't gain my support as some of the people were trying to undermine our Super Bowl - Oakland effort.
Attacking the NFL just reopens that case, BUT now with a twist -- they lost to Oakland. The Raiders tried to tie them together at first, but that did not work at all. In other words, we sue the NFL for tampering with our Oakland move, then sue Oakland for not giving us all we believed we were getting.
But now, Oakland's given them what they wanted, and because of that it was clear the NFL was not tampering, but the Raiders were creating the climate for things to look that way.
Not right at all.
Now, Mr. Davis wants to unravel all of that, and have egg on the face of the team yet again.
All I can say is his evidence better be water-tight this time.
I seriously doubt it is.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Don LaFontaine, John Leader, Al Chalk, Mark Elliot, and Nick Tate - Video
Wow. Check out this video featuring the greatest movie voices of the modern age of movies.
It features Don LaFontaine, John Leader, Al Chalk, Mark Elliot, and Nick Tate, all off to the Key Awards.
It features Don LaFontaine, John Leader, Al Chalk, Mark Elliot, and Nick Tate, all off to the Key Awards.
FON - Wifi Network I Just Joined
I'm preparing to go to New York for the NFL Draft, and I'm concerned that we may be without wireless service at Radio City Music Hall. In search of a backup plan in case the standard service gets giggy, I stumbled onto and joined the FON Network.
The basic idea is that with a small wireless device you can join any other person's FON network anywhere in the World. I'll let you know more as I delve into it. Right now, I'm pretty excited about it.
There seem to be a number of FONers in Oakland, including six within a mile of me.
The basic idea is that with a small wireless device you can join any other person's FON network anywhere in the World. I'll let you know more as I delve into it. Right now, I'm pretty excited about it.
There seem to be a number of FONers in Oakland, including six within a mile of me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)