September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9485] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Greg: I'm not sure I fully understand your point about "lots of problems with arrl.net". We haven't seen a significant number of complaints about people not being able to be reached through their arrl.net addresses, unless your referring to situations where ISPs have chosen to block mail. I would appreciate specific examples so we can do the proper research and find out if there is a systemic problem. Could the system be enhanced? Probably, but this takes programming and must be considered in relation to all our other objectives. As for implementing spam filtering, there is a small sub-committee of the A&F Committee working actively on the issue. Cost is certainly a factor, particularly given our efforts to balance revenues and expenses in the next fiscal year and the strategy which proposes that any new program or service be, minimally break-even financially. This will be an issue in the current Plan and budgeting cycle. 73, Barry, N1VXY -----Original Message----- From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9483] Re: Web Story Earthlink I'm not into "earthlink" but I have two points. (1) There is lots of spam and lots of problems with arrl.net (2) arrl.net is a tremendous resource. I really don't have a problem with the spam. I have a delete key and it not only works fine but its a lot of fun. I just scroll through my mail and love to delete all those unwanted messages. I don't use spam filters as I've found they are more trouble than they're worth. I love my delete key. I get this feeling of power. My problem with arrl.net is that so many people who actually have arrl.net can't be reached with that address. Its a pain in the *%# to go to the arrl member data base and try to find another email address. It would be so easy if arrl.net would just work. arrl.net is a great idea! It is so convenient and for those of us who have been forced to or wanted to change ISPs, just so easy. I have my w7oz(a)arrl.net address printed on my judicial business cards. I have it registered with airlines and all sorts of places. I purposely didn't use arrl.org (who knows I might have been opposed or defeated in the election). Also, it is good patterning for members. I often ask in newsletters etc. members sign up for arrl.net. It is easy for me and helps advertise the League. It is also a big selling point when convincing non-members to sign up. WE NEED TO FIX arrl.net and soon. It is important! I can't help but think that spending the money on Spam Filters on arrl.net will greatly ease our problems with earthlink and other ISPs. Am I wrong?? 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9484] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Greg Milnes 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Dick I beg to differ. The Commissioner's comments sounded good to me. I agree with most all she said. The only problem is a technical one. IF we could get BPL WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, I think it would be great. This all doesn't mean we can win on technical grounds only BUT we should recognize that it is a good concept. I hope someone can come up with a way to move the signals away from us or filter us out. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9483] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Greg Milnes 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

I'm not into "earthlink" but I have two points. (1) There is lots of spam and lots of problems with arrl.net (2) arrl.net is a tremendous resource. I really don't have a problem with the spam. I have a delete key and it not only works fine but its a lot of fun. I just scroll through my mail and love to delete all those unwanted messages. I don't use spam filters as I've found they are more trouble than they're worth. I love my delete key. I get this feeling of power. My problem with arrl.net is that so many people who actually have arrl.net can't be reached with that address. Its a pain in the *%# to go to the arrl member data base and try to find another email address. It would be so easy if arrl.net would just work. arrl.net is a great idea! It is so convenient and for those of us who have been forced to or wanted to change ISPs, just so easy. I have my w7oz(a)arrl.net address printed on my judicial business cards. I have it registered with airlines and all sorts of places. I purposely didn't use arrl.org (who knows I might have been opposed or defeated in the election). Also, it is good patterning for members. I often ask in newsletters etc. members sign up for arrl.net. It is easy for me and helps advertise the League. It is also a big selling point when convincing non-members to sign up. WE NEED TO FIX arrl.net and soon. It is important! I can't help but think that spending the money on Spam Filters on arrl.net will greatly ease our problems with earthlink and other ISPs. Am I wrong?? 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9481] November QST Editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

The attachment is the November QST editorial, written on the basis of member feedback to the October editorial. Dave <<It Seems QS-0311.pdf>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9480] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Rod: Currently, we have about 62,000 members with arrl.net addresses. And those same people who give out their e-mail addresses probably post them to public web page as well. That's why they get spam to their arrl.net address. I have an arrl.net address as well but have never gotten any spam through it. Of course, you can't find it posted anywhere in public either. We are going to have to do something about this but it won't come without additional costs. How much that is and if we want to incur the additional expense remains to be seen. As for your question about backlash, I'm not sure. At the moment, as you might suspect, I've been flooded with responses from members who are also Earthlink customers. With the exception of only a handful, all are complaining to Earthlink and using words like "valuable service", etc. when talking about arrl.net. I think those who have it value the ability to have their callsign attached to ARRL in their e-mail address. I think its more of an identity thing than it is a real benefit, but the perception is generally positive. Barry -----Original Message----- From: Stafford, Rodney (Int'l Vice President) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:34 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9478] Re: Web Story Earthlink As one of those 2,600 Earthlink subscribers (actually, w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com which was purchased by Earthlink) I did a little test yesterday about 13:38. You can see I was really, really busy yesterday! I sent one test message to w6rod(a)arrl.net and another test message to w6rod(a)arrl.org. The ".org" message arrived within a minute. I still haven't seen the ".net" message sent some 34 hours ago. At this point I wonder if we should just toss the whole "@arrl.net" idea. Anyone have a feeling if this would result in a backlash or not? I hear people giving out email addresses on the air and giving their call sign "@arrl.net" so it is being used by our members, apparently a lot of them. However, I have also heard a number of discussions (and participated in some) by different people complaining about all the spam they get through "@arrl.net." Personally, I think it is a great idea but it seems to generate about as many bad comments as good ones. Well just a thought. 73, Rod -------------------------------------------- At 10:41 AM 9/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: The following item will be posted to the ARRL web page today. In addition, I will be sending an e-mail to the 2,600 members who are affected by Earthlink's actions. The most frustrating part of this, with possibly the exception of finding an actual live human being to talk to, is the fact that Earthlink has given at least three different reasons directly to us or one of our members. One of their reasons is an outright lie, one has been resolved and the third is their "too much spam" response. 73, Barry, N1VXY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earthlink Still Delaying arrll.net e-mail Despite several discussions with representatives of Earthlink and changing stories from them on why they have instituted this action, Earthlink continues to delay messages being forwarded from arrl.net to earthlink.net addresses. As a result of Earthlink s actions, ARRL cannot guarantee that messages forwarded from arrl.net to members e-mail addresses at Earthlink will be delivered. At the root of the issue, is Earthlink s contention that the arrl.net domain is a spam source based on their internal standards and analysis. While they understand the concept of a simple mail forwarding system like arrl.net, and admit that the spam is not originating from it, they maintain their position that blocking all messages, including valid e-mail, from this domain is an effective tactic in their efforts to fight spam on the Internet. Earthlink has told ARRL staff that they will continue to delay messages until the amount of spam being sent through this system is reduced to a level they deem acceptable. Although we are attempting to contact the appropriate authorities at Earthlink, the situation is currently at an impasse. We understand and appreciate the inconvenience this represents to ARRL members. Other large national ISPs have dealt with this specific issue in a much more reasonable fashion once we were able to contact them and explain the situation. Those ISPs as well as hundreds of other smaller ones are accepting forwarded mail from arrl.net. Earthlink, however, is not. If you are one of the members affected by Earthlink s actions and have another e-mail account with a different ISP, you can change your e-mail address where your arrl.net is forwarded. This can be done through the Member Data page on the ARRL Members Only Web site. Changes to this information are delivered automatically twice daily so it may take several hours for the change to take effect. You may also want to contact Earthlink individually if you do not agree with their policies and tactics in this situation. E-mail can be sent to abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net < mailto:abuse@abuse.earthlink.net>. Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we will continue to try and resolve the situation with Earthlink.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9479] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

I apologize to officers and dierctors for the duplication, but for the benefit of the vice directors here's my letter to Commissioner Abernathy. We'll have a major story about this up on the ARRL Web site later today. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9477] FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL 24 SEP, 2003 - 2300 CDT Lest some people think we will win our fight against BPL on technical arguments alone, read what FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy recently said in her worshipful praise of the BPL concept. These people have their head so far up their... they cannot and will not accept the physical truth of the matter. They cannot bend physical laws to their myopic view of the world. And if they believe a totally deregulated RF spectrum will solve all communications problems and limitations, I have a nice assortment of bridges I would like to sell to them. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ===================================================================== The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money. This is from today's FCC Digest. Paul L. Gray, N0JAA Houston, TX ------------------------------- Reaching Broadband Nirvana United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery) Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this important juncture for BPL. As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward. While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment? I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe. The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LEC's broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market. Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition- related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9478] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Rod Stafford W6ROD 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

As one of those 2,600 Earthlink subscribers (actually, w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com which was purchased by Earthlink) I did a little test yesterday about 13:38. You can see I was really, really busy yesterday! I sent one test message to w6rod(a)arrl.net and another test message to w6rod(a)arrl.org. The ".org" message arrived within a minute. I still haven't seen the ".net" message sent some 34 hours ago. At this point I wonder if we should just toss the whole "@arrl.net" idea. Anyone have a feeling if this would result in a backlash or not? I hear people giving out email addresses on the air and giving their call sign "@arrl.net" so it is being used by our members, apparently a lot of them. However, I have also heard a number of discussions (and participated in some) by different people complaining about all the spam they get through "@arrl.net." Personally, I think it is a great idea but it seems to generate about as many bad comments as good ones. Well just a thought. 73, Rod -------------------------------------------- At 10:41 AM 9/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: >The following item will be posted to the ARRL web page today. In addition, >I will be sending an e-mail to the 2,600 members who are affected by >Earthlink's actions. The most frustrating part of this, with possibly the >exception of finding an actual live human being to talk to, is the fact >that Earthlink has given at least three different reasons directly to us >or one of our members. One of their reasons is an outright lie, one has >been resolved and the third is their "too much spam" response. > >73, >Barry, N1VXY > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Earthlink Still Delaying arrll.net e-mail > >Despite several discussions with representatives of Earthlink and changing >stories from them on why they have instituted this action, Earthlink >continues to delay messages being forwarded from arrl.net to earthlink.net >addresses. As a result of Earthlink s actions, ARRL cannot guarantee that >messages forwarded from arrl.net to members e-mail addresses at Earthlink >will be delivered. > >At the root of the issue, is Earthlink s contention that the arrl.net >domain is a spam source based on their internal standards and analysis. >While they understand the concept of a simple mail forwarding system like >arrl.net, and admit that the spam is not originating from it, they >maintain their position that blocking all messages, including valid >e-mail, from this domain is an effective tactic in their efforts to fight >spam on the Internet. Earthlink has told ARRL staff that they will >continue to delay messages until the amount of spam being sent through >this system is reduced to a level they deem acceptable. > >Although we are attempting to contact the appropriate authorities at >Earthlink, the situation is currently at an impasse. We understand and >appreciate the inconvenience this represents to ARRL members. Other large >national ISPs have dealt with this specific issue in a much more >reasonable fashion once we were able to contact them and explain the >situation. Those ISPs as well as hundreds of other smaller ones are >accepting forwarded mail from arrl.net. Earthlink, however, is not. > >If you are one of the members affected by Earthlink s actions and have >another e-mail account with a different ISP, you can change your e-mail >address where your arrl.net is forwarded. This can be done through the >Member Data page on the ARRL Members Only Web site. Changes to this >information are delivered automatically twice daily so it may take several >hours for the change to take effect. > >You may also want to contact Earthlink individually if you do not agree >with their policies and tactics in this situation. E-mail can be sent to >abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net ><<mailto:abuse@abuse.earthlink.net>mailto:abuse@abuse.earthlink.net>. > >Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we will continue to try and >resolve the situation with Earthlink.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9477] FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by dick＠pobox.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

24 SEP, 2003 - 2300 CDT Lest some people think we will win our fight against BPL on technical arguments alone, read what FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy recently said in her worshipful praise of the BPL concept. These people have their head so far up their... they cannot and will not accept the physical truth of the matter. They cannot bend physical laws to their myopic view of the world. And if they believe a totally deregulated RF spectrum will solve all communications problems and limitations, I have a nice assortment of bridges I would like to sell to them. 73 - Dick, W9GIG ===================================================================== The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money. This is from today's FCC Digest. Paul L. Gray, N0JAA Houston, TX ------------------------------- Reaching Broadband Nirvana United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery) Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this important juncture for BPL. As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward. While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment? I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe. The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LEC's broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market. Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition- related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9476] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

The following item will be posted to the ARRL web page today. In addition, I will be sending an e-mail to the 2,600 members who are affected by Earthlink's actions. The most frustrating part of this, with possibly the exception of finding an actual live human being to talk to, is the fact that Earthlink has given at least three different reasons directly to us or one of our members. One of their reasons is an outright lie, one has been resolved and the third is their "too much spam" response. 73, Barry, N1VXY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earthlink Still Delaying arrll.net e-mail Despite several discussions with representatives of Earthlink and changing stories from them on why they have instituted this action, Earthlink continues to delay messages being forwarded from arrl.net to earthlink.net addresses. As a result of Earthlink's actions, ARRL cannot guarantee that messages forwarded from arrl.net to members' e-mail addresses at Earthlink will be delivered. At the root of the issue, is Earthlink's contention that the arrl.net domain is a spam source based on their internal standards and analysis. While they understand the concept of a simple mail forwarding system like arrl.net, and admit that the spam is not originating from it, they maintain their position that blocking all messages, including valid e-mail, from this domain is an effective tactic in their efforts to fight spam on the Internet. Earthlink has told ARRL staff that they will continue to delay messages until the amount of spam being sent through this system is reduced to a level they deem acceptable. Although we are attempting to contact the appropriate authorities at Earthlink, the situation is currently at an impasse. We understand and appreciate the inconvenience this represents to ARRL members. Other large national ISPs have dealt with this specific issue in a much more reasonable fashion once we were able to contact them and explain the situation. Those ISPs as well as hundreds of other smaller ones are accepting forwarded mail from arrl.net. Earthlink, however, is not. If you are one of the members affected by Earthlink's actions and have another e-mail account with a different ISP, you can change your e-mail address where your arrl.net is forwarded. This can be done through the Member Data page on the ARRL Members' Only Web site. Changes to this information are delivered automatically twice daily so it may take several hours for the change to take effect. You may also want to contact Earthlink individually if you do not agree with their policies and tactics in this situation. E-mail can be sent to abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net <mailto:abuse@abuse.earthlink.net>. Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we will continue to try and resolve the situation with Earthlink.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9475] Re: FCC Sold to Clear Channel
by Andy Oppel 24 Sep '03

24 Sep '03

The good they die young. I saw Gary Sandy (who played Program Manager Travis on the show) in a production of Arsenic and Old Lace once. As you might guess, he was hilarious in the role of the son. -- Andy Art Goddard writes: > MessageGordon Jump, who played the befuddled radio station manager in "WKRP in Cincinnatti" and more recently the lonely Maytag repairman, died yesterday (Monday). He was 71. > > 73, Art > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim > To: arrl-odv > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 5:35 PM > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9467] Re: FCC Sold to Clear Channel > > > You know, I have been in the building that house WKRP and didn't see even Les, let alone the well-assembled receptionist. I don't even know where it is that the ill-fated turkeys landed! > > > > 73, > > > > AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. > > ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! > > Jim Weaver, K8JE > > Director, Great Lakes Division > > 5065 Bethany Rd. > > Mason, OH 45040-9660 > > Tel. 513-459-0142 > > E-mail k8je(a)arrl.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Craigie [mailto:wt3p@comcast.net] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:07 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9466] Re: FCC Sold to Clear Channel > > > > One of the creators of WKRP in Cincinnati, Bill Dial, was my station manager for a year at WPLO-FM in Atlanta back in the 1960's. Great show, even though the Loni Anderson character wasn't based on me! 73 - Kay N3KN > > > >

1 0