Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

John Navas wrote (8/5/2005 9:44 AM):

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:19:38 -0400,
> Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.solectek.com/techlib/tech...t-howhard.html
>>>shows a chart for wireless comm at 2.4GHz, and indicates that for
>>>a range of 25 miles you'd need transmitting antenna height of
>>>150 feet. Most cell towers I've seen are not that high.
>>
>>On the prairies of North and South Dakota, you can probably see the blinking
>>beacon further than the signal can travel. It all depends on where *you* are.
>
>
> The signal can work up to roughly 20 miles, which is a lot farther than most
> people could see a blinking beacon.
>

John, on the flat prairies of the Red River Valley in NW
Minnesota and eastern N.Dakota, the land is incredibly flat.
On a clear morning when atmospheric conditions are just
right, before a hint of the day's heat creates distortions,
the utility poles can be observed disappearing at the
horizon (with a pair of field glasses sandbagged on the top
of the car). Trust me, you can see the top of a high tower
a great deal farther than 20 miles, under the right conditions.

--
RJW
(who had the misfortune to once live for two year in that
corner of the planet)

---

› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Notan wrote:
>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
>>>You're *already* subsidizing phone service for the boonies.
>>>Have you paid your cell phone or landline bill lately?
>>
>>
>> And we folks, in the boonies, thank you for your support. <g>
>
> No problem! I like to know I'll have some form of service when
> I vist the boonies.
>

and that is exactly the problem. we are rapidly becoming a nation
of two separate cell phone systems. the urban areas are becoming
all gsm, while the vast majority of the rest of the nation remains
analog with some TDMA/CDMA thrown in in some of the 'larger'
metropolitan areas.

my folks live in western Iowa, which is solidly analog except for a
little strip along each interstate which supports gsm. for the
last several years my Nokia GAIT has met my needs just fine. but i
would really like to get an EDGE-compatible phone for my pda, which
would mean abandoning my gait phone for a gsm, and leaving me
without service as soon as i wander off of the interstate when i
travel home. solution - i don't know, but it would be nice to have
a newer generation of gait phones to select from.

Tropical Haven wrote:

>
> The federal government seems to think residents have a right to telephone
> service...net necessariy cellular though. However, it is being found that in some
> areas it is much cheaper to come up with a cellular solution than to come up with
> a wired solution. I remember a company that offered service called "Telular",
> which was a local cellular solution for residents that were too far from the
> wireline grid to utilize it.
>
> TH
>

There are some locales in Mexico that use cellular for corner pay
phones. My own house phone down there is a PAYG desk model with a
battery charger sourced from solar panels (along with the rest of the
house).

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Tropical Haven wrote:
>>Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers in
>>cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies. The
>>problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
>>and thus is taking longer.
>
>
> I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.
>
> TH
>


Same difference.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On 8/5/05 8:28 AM, in article [email protected], "Tropical
Haven" wrote:

<snip>

>> The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>> "right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
>> These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
>> on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>> companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
>> chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>> into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
>> endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>>
>> PC
>
> The federal government seems to think residents have a right to telephone
> service...net necessariy cellular though. However, it is being found that in
> some
> areas it is much cheaper to come up with a cellular solution than to come up
> with
> a wired solution. I remember a company that offered service called "Telular",
> which was a local cellular solution for residents that were too far from the
> wireline grid to utilize it.

The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone - however, by creating a
public utility, like regular phone service and regulating "blessed"
monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made "available" to all,
but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by "right".....! Don't
forget that those who get the "breaks" simply have the cost of their service
passed on to those of us who don't get "breaks". There is no free lunch and
somebody has to pay for everything. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't
afford a phone, do without......or better yet, get a job and earn the money
to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate society,
the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet. We have
always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so but we will
hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e., through private charity
rather than government confiscation. My quarrel is that we now also take
care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go to work
or starve....!

Cellular service is NOT a public utility, NOT a government regulated
monopoly; it is a private competitive business. The folks posting in this
and similar venues who incessantly "demand" that they receive the service
they want on THEIR terms accusing Verizon and others of unfair, unethical,
illegal and immoral business practices simply are displaying their abysmal
ignorance of what business is, what the profit motive is, what market driven
forces are and what the "rules" of consumerism are - another example of the
whining victim mentality so prevalent today which is based on three
generations of "dumbing down" in public schools....gangs of overage whining
children whose sense of selfishness reminds one of five year olds fighting
over the Oreo cookies and milk......!

PC




>
> TH
>

On 8/5/05 8:32 AM, in article [email protected], "Tropical
Haven" wrote:

>> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers
>> in
>> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
>> The
>> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
>> and thus is taking longer.
>
> I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.

Exactly, the double "whammy" - less profit because no one is there to use
it.....

PC

On 8/6/05 6:12 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
wrote:

> Tropical Haven wrote:
>>> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers
>>> in
>>> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
>>> The
>>> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
>>> and thus is taking longer.
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.
>>
>> TH
>>
>
>
> Same difference.

Not so, the difference is "night and day".......

If'n you don't grok the difference between cost and profit, you better never
try to run a business.....

IF there were sufficient demand for service in any area, urban or remote,
that folks were willing to PAY FOR, the "expense" of putting up the towers,
etc., would simply be a function of the rates charged in order to generate
profits. Higher expenses merely result in higher rates....!

PC

Proconsul wrote:
>
> The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone

To put it nicely, you've only got it half right. "Rights" don't need to
be granted--they already exist. But government can, and has, enacted
legislation to limit or remove those rights (and let's not forget about
the judicial branch). While this ain't the place for a discussion about
Constitutional interpretation, suffice to say that a number of our
founding fathers were so concerned about certain rights being taken away
that they amended the Constitution from the get-go. You know, that
little thing we often refer to as the Bill of Rights (which actually
merely prevents rights from being taken away--only to be trampled upon
by the US SC).


> - however, by
> creating a public utility, like regular phone service and regulating
> "blessed" monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made
> "available" to all,
> but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by "right".....!
> Don't forget that those who get the "breaks" simply have the cost of
> their service passed on to those of us who don't get "breaks". There
> is no free lunch and somebody has to pay for everything. As far as
> I'm concerned, if you can't afford a phone, do without......or better
> yet, get a job and earn the money
> to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate
> society,

"We?" I don't see a shred of compassion coming out of you--so change
that to "you" (plural).


> the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.
> We have always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so
> but we will hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e., through
> private charity rather than government confiscation. My quarrel is
> that we now also take
> care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go
> to work or starve....!
>

You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the discussion
is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about starving?!).

If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to be you when: you
happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck would have
it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts to the side of
the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not even aware of how
little you think of them, rush to your aid. But alas, they have no way
to contact emergency services (well, if they even have them, as in your
view they probably aren't entitled to any).

By the time they jump on the old mule and get help to you you've been
deprived of oxygen for so long you have lost all motor control--a
vegetable with a brain. You'll need lifetime care, but your insurance
company won't cover you for life (not a good business plan). So you'll
need help from "private charity." Oops, for some reason not a single
"private charity" sees reason to care for you.

That's karma. Have a great day.


--
Mike (who is far from a liberal)

On 8/6/05 10:03 AM, in article [email protected], "Tinman"
wrote:

> Proconsul wrote:
>>
>> The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone
>
> To put it nicely, you've only got it half right. "Rights" don't need to
> be granted--they already exist. But government can, and has, enacted
> legislation to limit or remove those rights (and let's not forget about
> the judicial branch). While this ain't the place for a discussion about
> Constitutional interpretation, suffice to say that a number of our
> founding fathers were so concerned about certain rights being taken away
> that they amended the Constitution from the get-go. You know, that
> little thing we often refer to as the Bill of Rights (which actually
> merely prevents rights from being taken away--only to be trampled upon
> by the US SC).

To put it nicely, I got it exactly right......don't confuse "The Supremes"
with "The Feds". The executive branch can't "confer" rights. The legislative
branch can't "confer" rights but can regulate Interstate Commerce. The
judicial branch can do ONLY what the legislative branch permits them to do,
through inaction since legislation and/or amendment can trump "The
Supremes". The problem is that our current leaders have no stones.....

>> - however, by
>> creating a public utility, like regular phone service and regulating
>> "blessed" monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made
>> "available" to all,
>> but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by "right".....!
>> Don't forget that those who get the "breaks" simply have the cost of
>> their service passed on to those of us who don't get "breaks". There
>> is no free lunch and somebody has to pay for everything. As far as
>> I'm concerned, if you can't afford a phone, do without......or better
>> yet, get a job and earn the money
>> to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate
>> society,
>
> "We?" I don't see a shred of compassion coming out of you--so change
> that to "you" (plural).

Think more clearly and don't confuse an unwillingness to support the
"unwilling" with a lack of compassion - we are, individually and
collectively, the most compassionate society yet to exist on this planet.
Personally, I participate in both private charity and government
confiscation. As do most people. I freely support the former but don't
support being forced to participate in the latter.

> You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the discussion
> is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about starving?!).

If you find the discussion "laughable", press DEL and move on...that's what
I do.....

I wasn't talking about "coverage" but rather the novel notion displayed so
often herein that Verizon and other carriers have to provide YOU with the
service YOU want on YOUR terms - very PC and very stupid....

The cellular industry is a private business, not a malleable required
"service" entity that each subscriber can tailor to his or her whims....

> If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to be you when: you
> happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck would have
> it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts to the side of
> the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not even aware of how
> little you think of them, rush to your aid. But alas, they have no way
> to contact emergency services (well, if they even have them, as in your
> view they probably aren't entitled to any).

Don't worry about me - unlike so many others, I take care of myself.
When/if I need help, I know how to get it and ensure that I have the means
to do so. I recommend personal rectitude to everyone......

> That's karma. Have a great day.

I don't believe in Karma either - that's for those who eschew personal
rectitude and think others have to take responsibility for their
foolishness.....

You have a nice day, too......

PC

Proconsul wrote:
>
>
> On 8/5/05 8:28 AM, in article [email protected], "Tropical
> Haven" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>The fact is that no one has a "right" to cable TV service. No one has a
>>>"right" to Internet access. No one has a "right" to cellular phone coverage.
>>>These commodities are not necessities of life but rather they are "for sale"
>>>on the open market - sold to people who can pay for the service. The
>>>companies are under no obligation to provide service to any individual who
>>>chooses to live in the middle of nowhere but rather to sell their service
>>>into a market that can afford to provide the seller with a profit. All this
>>>endless prattling about "rights" is becoming tedious.....
>>>
>>>PC
>>
>>The federal government seems to think residents have a right to telephone
>>service...net necessariy cellular though. However, it is being found that in
>>some
>>areas it is much cheaper to come up with a cellular solution than to come up
>>with
>>a wired solution. I remember a company that offered service called "Telular",
>>which was a local cellular solution for residents that were too far from the
>>wireline grid to utilize it.
>
>
> The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone - however, by creating a
> public utility, like regular phone service and regulating "blessed"
> monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made "available" to all,
> but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by "right".....! Don't
> forget that those who get the "breaks" simply have the cost of their service
> passed on to those of us who don't get "breaks". There is no free lunch and
> somebody has to pay for everything. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't
> afford a phone, do without......or better yet, get a job and earn the money
> to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate society,
> the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet. We have
> always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so but we will
> hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e., through private charity
> rather than government confiscation. My quarrel is that we now also take
> care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go to work
> or starve....!
>
> Cellular service is NOT a public utility, NOT a government regulated
> monopoly; it is a private competitive business. The folks posting in this
> and similar venues who incessantly "demand" that they receive the service
> they want on THEIR terms accusing Verizon and others of unfair, unethical,
> illegal and immoral business practices simply are displaying their abysmal
> ignorance of what business is, what the profit motive is, what market driven
> forces are and what the "rules" of consumerism are - another example of the
> whining victim mentality so prevalent today which is based on three
> generations of "dumbing down" in public schools....gangs of overage whining
> children whose sense of selfishness reminds one of five year olds fighting
> over the Oreo cookies and milk......!
>


And then there's this from today's paper... (Fair Use claim fully
intact here)




Barton seeks repeal of rural service rule

Subsidies are unfair to urban customers, congressman says

09:24 PM CDT on Friday, August 5, 2005

By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton said Friday that he would like to repeal the
requirement for universal telephone service, in which telephone
customers help subsidize phone service in rural areas.

"If you want a requirement that there ought to be some basic telephone
service, I'd say fine, let's do it on a least-cost basis so that a
cellphone qualifies, a cellphone tower in West Texas would qualify," Mr.
Barton said.

But he said he knows that other lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Stevens,
R-Alaska, who heads the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee, will fight to preserve the subsidies, and that some
compromise will be necessary.

"There are too many rural telephone companies that depend almost
entirely on their cash flow for those basic universal service charges,"
he said. "But we're going to do our best to restructure it."

Mr. Barton, R-Ennis, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, said he expects the panel this month or next to release a
draft of legislation to revamp federal telecommunication law.

He gave only a few details about what might be in it, but he said his
goal is to expand competition among telephone companies, cable companies
and other telecommunications providers.

"I believe in free markets. I believe in individual opportunity. I
believe in free-market capitalism. I believe in a level playing field. I
believe in the future," said Mr. Barton, speaking to the Metroplex
Technology Business Council in Richardson.

"So if you want a telecommunications bill that comes out in this
Congress that protects vested interests, preserves the status quo,
stymies entrepreneurship, I'm not your guy," he said.

The fund provides discounts to low-income consumers, subsidizes
companies providing service in high-cost areas, pays for Internet
service for schools and libraries, and links rural and urban health care
providers.

Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
needed subsidies to be built.

But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
telephone service as urban customers, he said. "That's not necessary
anymore, and it's not fair."

Mr. Barton said he doesn't think the federal government should require
telephone or cable companies to open up their lines to competitors.

"But I do think it should be permissive so that if they want to, they
certainly could," he said.

The FCC on Friday lifted that requirement for telephone companies,
putting them under the same rule as cable firms.





--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Tinman wrote:
> Proconsul wrote:
>
>>The Feds didn't/can't confer any "right" on anyone
>
>
> To put it nicely, you've only got it half right. "Rights" don't need to
> be granted--they already exist. But government can, and has, enacted
> legislation to limit or remove those rights (and let's not forget about
> the judicial branch). While this ain't the place for a discussion about
> Constitutional interpretation, suffice to say that a number of our
> founding fathers were so concerned about certain rights being taken away
> that they amended the Constitution from the get-go. You know, that
> little thing we often refer to as the Bill of Rights (which actually
> merely prevents rights from being taken away--only to be trampled upon
> by the US SC).
>
>
>
>>- however, by
>>creating a public utility, like regular phone service and regulating
>>"blessed" monopolies, the Feds can mandate that service be made
>>"available" to all,
>>but you still have to buy it, it doesn't come to you by "right".....!
>>Don't forget that those who get the "breaks" simply have the cost of
>>their service passed on to those of us who don't get "breaks". There
>>is no free lunch and somebody has to pay for everything. As far as
>>I'm concerned, if you can't afford a phone, do without......or better
>>yet, get a job and earn the money
>>to support yourself....! At the same time, we are a compassionate
>>society,
>
>
> "We?" I don't see a shred of compassion coming out of you--so change
> that to "you" (plural).
>
>
>
>>the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.
>>We have always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so
>>but we will hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e., through
>>private charity rather than government confiscation. My quarrel is
>>that we now also take
>>care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go
>>to work or starve....!
>>
>
>
> You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the discussion
> is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about starving?!).
>
> If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to be you when: you
> happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck would have
> it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts to the side of
> the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not even aware of how
> little you think of them, rush to your aid. But alas, they have no way
> to contact emergency services (well, if they even have them, as in your
> view they probably aren't entitled to any).
>
> By the time they jump on the old mule and get help to you you've been
> deprived of oxygen for so long you have lost all motor control--a
> vegetable with a brain. You'll need lifetime care, but your insurance
> company won't cover you for life (not a good business plan). So you'll
> need help from "private charity." Oops, for some reason not a single
> "private charity" sees reason to care for you.
>
> That's karma. Have a great day.
>
>


So, you're expecting someone else to make up for your shortcomings?
Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas where
it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second place, adios
muchacho.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Proconsul wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/05 6:12 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tropical Haven wrote:
>>
>>>>Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because subscribers
>>>>in
>>>>cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
>>>>The
>>>>problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the boonies,
>>>>and thus is taking longer.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.
>>>
>>>TH
>>>
>>
>>
>>Same difference.
>
>
> Not so, the difference is "night and day".......
>
> If'n you don't grok the difference between cost and profit, you better never
> try to run a business.....
>
> IF there were sufficient demand for service in any area, urban or remote,
> that folks were willing to PAY FOR, the "expense" of putting up the towers,
> etc., would simply be a function of the rates charged in order to generate
> profits. Higher expenses merely result in higher rates....!
>
> PC

I guess my terse comment was a bit too short. I didn't intend to infer
that expenses and profits existed for the same reasons - they don't -
only that they're welded together near the end of a quarterly report.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> Proconsul wrote:
>>
>>> the most compassionate society that has ever existed on this planet.
>>> We have always taken care of the "unable" and will continue to do so
>>> but we will hopefully return to doing it the right way, i.e.,
>>> through private charity rather than government confiscation. My
>>> quarrel is that we now also take
>>> care of the "unwilling" - as far as I'm concerned they can either go
>>> to work or starve....!
>>>
>>
>>
>> You have traveled so far off topic that it is laughable (the
>> discussion is about cellphone coverage and you're talking about
>> starving?!). If I believed in karma, I'd say that I wouldn't want to
>> be you when:
>> you happen to be traveling through a rural town, and as bad luck
>> would have it, you have a mild heart attack. Your car slowly drifts
>> to the side of the road and hits a pole. The friendly locals, not
>> even aware of how little you think of them, rush to your aid. But
>> alas, they have no way to contact emergency services (well, if they
>> even have them, as in your view they probably aren't entitled to
>> any). By the time they jump on the old mule and get help to you
>> you've been
>> deprived of oxygen for so long you have lost all motor control--a
>> vegetable with a brain. You'll need lifetime care, but your insurance
>> company won't cover you for life (not a good business plan). So
>> you'll need help from "private charity." Oops, for some reason not a
>> single "private charity" sees reason to care for you.
>>
>> That's karma. Have a great day.
>>
>>
>
>
> So, you're expecting someone else to make up for your shortcomings?

So, you missed that Reading for Comprehension class? (I never once
mentioned anything about "shortcomings," whatever the heck that was
supposed to mean.)


> Dude, if you don't take care of yourself good enough to avoid that
> problem in the first place, or aren't smart enough to avoid areas
> where it's impossible for someone else to help you in the second
> place, adios muchacho.

Gee, I wonder why we are helping those damn Russians. They should have
known the bottom of the ocean is a dangerous place to be. Let 'em die!


--
Mike

Jer wrote:
> Mr. Barton said the requirement for universal service was a necessity
> back in the 1920s when telephone service was rare in rural areas and
> needed subsidies to be built.
>
> But now many rural customers pay less than half as much for basic local
> telephone service as urban customers, he said.

Is this true? If so, it's a travesty on the subsidy system.
I don't see rural folk agreeing to take half of the smog, crime and
traffic jams of the cities.

--
John Richards

On 8/6/05 10:49 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
wrote:

> Proconsul wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/05 6:12 AM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Tropical Haven wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Carriers do care about coverage in the boonies, in part because
>>>>> subscribers
>>>>> in
>>>>> cities and towns expect their phones to work when they visit the boonies.
>>>>> The
>>>>> problem is that it's much more expensive to provide coverage in the
>>>>> boonies,
>>>>> and thus is taking longer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's more expensive, I think it's just less profitable.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Same difference.
>>
>>
>> Not so, the difference is "night and day".......
>>
>> If'n you don't grok the difference between cost and profit, you better never
>> try to run a business.....
>>
>> IF there were sufficient demand for service in any area, urban or remote,
>> that folks were willing to PAY FOR, the "expense" of putting up the towers,
>> etc., would simply be a function of the rates charged in order to generate
>> profits. Higher expenses merely result in higher rates....!
>>
>> PC
>
> I guess my terse comment was a bit too short. I didn't intend to infer
> that expenses and profits existed for the same reasons - they don't -
> only that they're welded together near the end of a quarterly report.

My additional comments were more for others than for you - as I see it, you
"grok" reality better than most who post here......

PC