reply to discussion
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 128
  1. #61
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:29:31 -0700]:
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC), in
    > <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:25:38 -0700]:
    >>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in
    >>> <[email protected]>, SMS
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>>While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
    >>>>urban centers,
    >>>
    >>> It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.

    >>
    >>Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
    >>my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

    >
    > There are other areas where the opposite is true.


    If all the areas outside of urban centers I frequent have crappy Sprint coverage
    it certainly must mean that Sprint coverage is wonderful.



    See More: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others




  2. #62
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:24:59 +0000 (UTC), in
    <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:27:03 -0700]:
    >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC), in
    >> <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:26:25 -0700]:
    >>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:24:00 +0000 (UTC), in
    >>>> <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>SMS wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700]:
    >>>>>> On 20/07/10 2:41 PM, George wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Same here, they simply didn't spend much effort lighting up much but the
    >>>>>>> highways.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Actually in some areas the problem is that they _don't_ spend the money
    >>>>>> to even light up the highway, if it's a secondary highway. A common
    >>>>>> problem in California with the GSM carriers is the lack of coverage on
    >>>>>> less major highways that follow valleys. If you look at the coverage
    >>>>>> maps you can see coverage on surrounding ridges that get coverage from
    >>>>>> towns ten or fifteen miles away, but the road below shows no coverage.
    >>>>>> In that sense, if anyone lives on those ridges, they actually are
    >>>>>> "lucky" to get coverage because it was not intentional.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
    >>>>>> urban centers, at least they allow roaming onto all the other CDMA
    >>>>>> carriers, i.e. Verizon, U.S. Cellular, Golden State Cellular, plus a
    >>>>>> load of really small CDMA carriers. If you look at the small rural
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?
    >>>>
    >>>> For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
    >>>> don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.
    >>>
    >>>I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
    >>>onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

    >>
    >> That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

    >
    >I guess English is your second language.


    Wrong again.

    --
    John

    "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
    and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman



  3. #63
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:26:44 +0000 (UTC), in
    <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:29:31 -0700]:
    >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC), in
    >> <[email protected]>, Justin <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>John Navas wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:25:38 -0700]:
    >>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:27:55 -0700, in
    >>>> <[email protected]>, SMS
    >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>While Sprint's native coverage may not be all that great outside of
    >>>>>urban centers,
    >>>>
    >>>> It actually is quite good, comparable to other carriers.
    >>>
    >>>Comparable to AT&T maybe, since both have huge coverage holes in this area, however
    >>>my Verizon phone works where my friends with AT&T and Spring don't have coverage

    >>
    >> There are other areas where the opposite is true.

    >
    >If all the areas outside of urban centers I frequent have crappy Sprint coverage
    >it certainly must mean that Sprint coverage is wonderful.


    You might want to broaden your horizons and take off those blinders.
    Possibly even get a better Sprint phone.

    --
    John

    "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
    [Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]



  4. #64
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 21/07/10 11:20 AM, nospam wrote:

    <snip>

    > sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
    > actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.


    The problem that many, if not most, Sprint customers encounter is that
    if their phone finds a Sprint signal, no matter how weak and unusable,
    the phone will _not_ automatically roam onto Verizon or other CDMA carriers.

    The workaround, on Sprint phones that allow it, is to force the phone to
    roam. Not all Sprint phones have this option. Naturally Sprint does not
    want its customers doing excessive roaming because it costs the company
    money.

    The bottom line is that _if_ you have a Sprint phone that allows forced
    roaming then the Sprint phone could have equivalent or better coverage
    than Verizon.

    Related to the original subject of this thread, on Virgin Mobile there
    is _no_ roaming off Sprint possible. This greatly limits the available
    coverage. If you never leave areas with a usable Sprint signal than the
    plan that the original poster was asking about is indeed a very good
    deal (as long as you don't want a smart phone and don't want to tether).

    The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
    of course ludicrous. It's not binary. The poorer carriers (and their
    apologists) often use this kind of logic when defending their networks
    and trying to make a sale. Similarly, if Sprint is telling potential
    customers that their coverage is a superset of Sprint+Verizon+all other
    CDMA carriers, and then selling the customer a phone that can't force
    roaming, they're walking a fine line of truthfulness. Also, the setting
    for forced roaming is usually not permanent--it needs to be re-enabled
    often.



  5. #65
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:40:03 -0700, in
    <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 21/07/10 11:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
    >> actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

    >
    >The problem that many, if not most, Sprint customers encounter is that
    >if their phone finds a Sprint signal, no matter how weak and unusable,
    >the phone will _not_ automatically roam onto Verizon or other CDMA carriers.


    [sigh] That's not how it works. Unless the phone is defective, it will
    only favor the Home network if the signal is *usable*.

    >The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
    >of course ludicrous.


    to a dedicated crusader like you to whom facts are annoying
    distractions.

    --
    John

    "There are three kinds of men.
    The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation.
    The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
    -Will Rogers



  6. #66
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    nospam wrote on [Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:20:16 -0400]:
    > In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >> For the same reason Sprint phones work in areas that Verizon phones
    >> >> don't -- all carriers have coverage holes.
    >> >
    >> >I guess you refused to read the part I quoted where apparently sprint roams
    >> >onto all other CDMA carriers, including Verizon.

    >>
    >> That's not a correct assumption on your part. What I stated is correct.

    >
    > sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
    > actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.


    If I have good signal and can make a call on VZW, my friend on sprint should be able
    to as well? He can't. I am on an Incredible, he on a Pre.



  7. #67
    nospam
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In article <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > sprint *does* roam on verizon and other cdma carriers, which if you
    > > actually had a sprint phone, you'd know.

    >
    > The problem that many, if not most, Sprint customers encounter is that
    > if their phone finds a Sprint signal, no matter how weak and unusable,
    > the phone will _not_ automatically roam onto Verizon or other CDMA carriers.


    nope.

    > The workaround, on Sprint phones that allow it, is to force the phone to
    > roam. Not all Sprint phones have this option. Naturally Sprint does not
    > want its customers doing excessive roaming because it costs the company
    > money.


    nope.

    > The bottom line is that _if_ you have a Sprint phone that allows forced
    > roaming then the Sprint phone could have equivalent or better coverage
    > than Verizon.


    nope.

    > Related to the original subject of this thread, on Virgin Mobile there
    > is _no_ roaming off Sprint possible. This greatly limits the available
    > coverage. If you never leave areas with a usable Sprint signal than the
    > plan that the original poster was asking about is indeed a very good
    > deal (as long as you don't want a smart phone and don't want to tether).


    that's a different issue. virgin mobile may have their own arrangement.

    > The idea that all carriers are equal because all have coverage holes is
    > of course ludicrous.


    it's exactly the case.

    > It's not binary. The poorer carriers (and their
    > apologists) often use this kind of logic when defending their networks
    > and trying to make a sale.


    to an extent, yes.

    > Similarly, if Sprint is telling potential
    > customers that their coverage is a superset of Sprint+Verizon+all other
    > CDMA carriers, and then selling the customer a phone that can't force
    > roaming, they're walking a fine line of truthfulness. Also, the setting
    > for forced roaming is usually not permanent--it needs to be re-enabled
    > often.


    it's correct. sprint *will* roam on other carriers if necessary. it
    turns out that it's not needed all that often, at least in my
    experience.



  8. #68
    nospam
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In article <[email protected]>, Justin
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If I have good signal and can make a call on VZW, my friend on sprint should
    > be able to as well? He can't. I am on an Incredible, he on a Pre.


    so because one phone didn't roam, the entire carrier sucks?

    try another phone. i've gone on a couple of lengthy road trips with
    sprint and have watched it digital roam in numerous places. it's never
    needed to drop to analog (and analog was available at the time). i
    don't know onto which carrier it was (nor do i care), however, i was
    always able to make/receive calls, except at the top of pike's peak,
    colorado.



  9. #69
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On 21/07/10 5:24 AM, Justin wrote:

    <snip>

    > Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?


    Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
    is not being forced to roam on Verizon.

    I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
    city. Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
    settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
    phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
    under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
    _any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
    the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
    an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
    automatic unless they force roaming.

    There was one conference room at a company I used to work for, that my
    Verizon phone would roam onto Sprint, but it's _extremely_ rare in the
    San Francisco Bay Area for Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T to have coverage
    and Verizon to not have coverage.



  10. #70
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:48:41 -0700, in
    <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 21/07/10 5:24 AM, Justin wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

    >
    >Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
    >is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
    >
    >I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
    >city. Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
    >settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
    >phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
    >under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
    >_any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
    >the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
    >an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
    >automatic unless they force roaming.
    >
    >There was one conference room at a company I used to work for, that my
    >Verizon phone would roam onto Sprint, but it's _extremely_ rare in the
    >San Francisco Bay Area for Sprint, T-Mobile, or AT&T to have coverage
    >and Verizon to not have coverage.


    Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.
    Sprint and T-Mobile aren't far behind. Overall, there is relatively
    little difference in coverage among the four major carriers. Each have
    their own holes, and places where they work better than other carriers.

    --
    John

    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
    "Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
    as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin



  11. #71
    nospam
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Wrong again: AT&T coverage is arguably the best in the Bay Area.


    not even close. at&t is not good in the bay area, which at&t themselves
    admit. the other problem area is new york city. you don't use it, so
    you're not in a position to comment.



  12. #72
    nospam
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In article <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Then why does my Verizon phone work in areas that sprint phones don't?

    >
    > Almost certainly because the Sprint phone has a poor Sprint signal and
    > is not being forced to roam on Verizon.
    >
    > I live in an area with extremely poor Sprint coverage in most of the
    > city.


    san francisco bay area? coverage is actually very good there.

    > Non-techies, that would never dream of going into a phone's
    > settings menu to force roaming but that have been informed that Sprint
    > phones can roam onto other carriers, do not understand the conditions
    > under which automatic roaming occurs or does not occur. If they have
    > _any_ Sprint signal, even if it's insufficient to make or receive calls,
    > the phone will not automatically roam onto Verizon. They have to be in
    > an area with absolutely no Sprint signal at all for roaming to be
    > automatic unless they force roaming.


    it's actually more than adequate just about anywhere in the bay area,
    and has been for a long, long time.

    it was a little iffy a decade ago when sprint was building out, but
    certainly not now.



  13. #73
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 21 Jul 2010 16:36:53 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> On 21 Jul 2010 15:27:38 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I likewise understand there aren't many of them here.
    >>>>
    >>>>Most are sitting twice the distance out to sea than GSM can possibly go and
    >>>>maintaining that they are making a connection to a land based tower [rather
    >>>>than an offshore tower/repeater]. Oh wait, there is only one such person in
    >>>>this group ... in this thread ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Yep. I know it worked as described. You're just going on speculation.
    >>> That pretty much says it all.
    >>>

    >>
    >>No more speculative than theoretical physics. I post about theory and effects
    >>and by golly, this scenario is the perfect storm to prove it out and it proves
    >>out in spades. It doesn't mean that anything I said is right for sure, but it
    >>does say that what I have said has evidence to support it. We all know that
    >>PCS has distance and penetration limitations compared to Cellular ... simple
    >>physics. CDMA has better error correction technology (it is newer than GSM,
    >>so that shouldn't be surprising) and can utilize multipath to it's benefit
    >>where GSM is nearly always hindered by it. With better error correction
    >>technology, it means lower base bandwidth requirements for the data payload.
    >>...

    >
    > Do you have anything more persuasive then your own opinions and
    > unsupported claims?
    >


    The facts about frequency penetration [in building] are there for anybody to
    look up. The facts about GSM and CDMA are there for anybody to look up. The
    error correction that I speak of is available for GSM for anybody to lookup; I
    am not so sure about CDMA since it is under Qualcomm patent, but comparing to
    similar spreadspectrum technologies, if one extrapolates, it is about 100%
    likely that the error correction protocol used for CDMA is more advanced than
    for GSM and it is easy to see then that CDMA can work at a lower signal
    relative to if it used what GSM uses for error correction. Thus, applied to
    building penetration, it is easy to conclude that the improved error correcton
    of CDMA will aid in building penetration. Throw in the fact that CDMA can
    utilize multipath rather than necessarily be hindered by it as is the case
    with GSM and you can also make similar conclusions about "in structure"
    signal.

    So, the data is all there. My experience (which I can't exactly share with
    you since you are not here, nor can I invite you here ... or would I) backs up
    what I have said and concluded based on open data [except for the error
    correction protocol for CDMA, which may be available, but I haven't seen it
    directly, only compared to GSM some time back].

    In summary, you can debunk my conclusions all you want, but the fact remains
    that the building I work in is a prime test case to prove out [rather, it
    doesn't disprove] my conclusions. There are a couple of hundred people here
    on various carriers which all can tell the same story and some of them are RF
    engineers themselves, although they probably don't spend time in this group.

    John - your record is clear, if it isn't cingular [you still won't let
    cingular go and just accept AT&T as far as newsgroups go], it isn't GSM or
    later on the evolutionary ladder towards consolidation (ironically much closer
    to CDMA than to anything remotely like GSM/TDMA) then you just simple write
    things like, "not true", "liar", "wrong again", or just pick to negative words
    and pair them. But real word data suggests otherwise and that is why AT&T
    threw such a hissy fit about the 3G coverage in Verizon's commercials, because
    it was true and they didn't like it [and either do you!].

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse

    Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.



  14. #74
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On 21 Jul 2010 16:38:23 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> On 21 Jul 2010 15:31:50 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>>I have already posted my experience. I have been working with this particular
    >>>>client for more than five years [with a 20 month gap between gigs] and nothing
    >>>>but Verizon has ever worked well here and that goes for data as well as voice.
    >>>>The area is a technology park and is "well covered", but the real problem is
    >>>>one of building penetration and the makeup of the structure [which is not
    >>>>uncommon] and only Verizon can deal with it [all carriers are on the same
    >>>>tower less than a mile away]. For reasons already indicated, I believe this
    >>>>to be due to the fact that they are the only carrier that uses CDMA and works
    >>>>in the lower frequency cellular bands [and data is also in the lower frequency
    >>>>bands compared to other carriers]. In short, what I have said all along about
    >>>>GSM and building penetration along with PCS and building penetration both seem
    >>>>to apply in practice.
    >>>
    >>> All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
    >>> do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.

    >>
    >>This is not an issue with "holes". The tower is close by for all carriers
    >>(since they are all on the same tower). Walk out the door of the building and
    >>all carriers show full signal (data and voice). Inside and ONLY Verizon shows
    >>the same full signal (data and voice).

    >
    > The location of the tower is only one factor. Also important is the
    > type and orientation of the antennas. All you really have is one
    > anecdotal experience. How about some authoritative citations to back up
    > your claims?
    >


    And the fact that I said that any carriers phone, when carried outside the
    building goes to full or nearly full signal has no bearing on the subject at
    all, eh?

    What cititions do you need? The GSM open spec? Dig it up yourself.
    Comparisons between OTA performance of GSM and CDMA? Dig it up yourself. I
    could continue, but you get the drift.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse

    Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.



  15. #75
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Virgin Mobile $25 plan vs all others

    In alt.cellular.verizon Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> On 21 Jul 2010 15:31:50 GMT, in <[email protected]>,
    >>> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Carriers certainly aren't all the same, but the differences are less
    >>>>> significant than proponents claim here, and change over time -- what
    >>>>> was
    >>>>> true last year may not be true this year, ad infinitum. All that
    >>>>> really
    >>>>> matters is how well a given service works for you in the places you
    >>>>> care
    >>>>> about, not what someone else claims about the coverage, not what some
    >>>>> anonymous person here may claim about the technology.
    >>>>
    >>>>I have already posted my experience. I have been working with this
    >>>>particular
    >>>>client for more than five years [with a 20 month gap between gigs] and
    >>>>nothing
    >>>>but Verizon has ever worked well here and that goes for data as well as
    >>>>voice.
    >>>>The area is a technology park and is "well covered", but the real problem
    >>>>is
    >>>>one of building penetration and the makeup of the structure [which is not
    >>>>uncommon] and only Verizon can deal with it [all carriers are on the same
    >>>>tower less than a mile away]. For reasons already indicated, I believe
    >>>>this
    >>>>to be due to the fact that they are the only carrier that uses CDMA and
    >>>>works
    >>>>in the lower frequency cellular bands [and data is also in the lower
    >>>>frequency
    >>>>bands compared to other carriers]. In short, what I have said all along
    >>>>about
    >>>>GSM and building penetration along with PCS and building penetration both
    >>>>seem
    >>>>to apply in practice.
    >>>
    >>> All carriers have coverage holes, Verizon included, and it has little to
    >>> do with technology or frequency -- it's mostly a matter of tower siting.
    >>>

    >>
    >> This is not an issue with "holes". The tower is close by for all carriers
    >> (since they are all on the same tower). Walk out the door of the building
    >> and
    >> all carriers show full signal (data and voice). Inside and ONLY Verizon
    >> shows
    >> the same full signal (data and voice).

    >
    > And you're positive Verizon doesn't have a repeater inside the building?
    > Most modern AT&T phones use a CDMA-based 3G radio at 850 and 1900 for voice
    > and data, with GSM as a fallback, so the "CDMA vs. GSM" factor would seem to
    > be removed from the equation, unless your AT&T-packing colleagues are using
    > really old phones.


    Yes ... oddly, the company's preferred carrier was AT&T (and may still be, I
    am not sure as I am not an employee). I in one building of many and it is
    this particular building with issues as it used to be an old warehouse;
    remodelled for R&D.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse

    Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.