Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Once again whackers wanna screw up the hobby... Encryption  (Read 147688 times)
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 212




Ignore
« Reply #75 on: July 13, 2013, 04:52:53 PM »

If an individual country wishes to expand on this (as you say the FCC has done in the United States), I see no reason why this should be viewed as illegitimate.  
As I've noted before, that definition (in Article 1.56 of the ITU rules) simply states that ours is to be:

"A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."  (my emphasis added)

Note the words "self-training", "intercommunication" and "technical investigation".  Also note that we are a supposed to be a radio service for persons interested in radio technique solely with a "personal aim" and without pecuniary interest.
"intercommunication" (or, communication as I more casually call it) is communication, whether it's for emergency communications or not - I don't see how emergency comms are treated with any distinction by that ITU standard.
"self-training" - rigid, disciplined technique and practice that is demanded by effective emergency communications (as well as weak-signal, contesting, and DX-chasing) is self-training, or do you argue this point?
"technical investigation" - this is the backdrop to on-air practice, required to even begin - much less maintain - an effective communication practice.  Most non-technical users farm this part out, but find it difficult to maintain communications when the knowledge that stems from technical investigation is not handy (in other words, the engineer is gone for the weekend).
Quote
Again, I ask, where in any of THAT does it even allow for us to become some adjunct "emergency communications" service?
I see nothing in what the ITU says that limits us from being (or at least providing) such a service.
Quote
Furthermore, how does any of that EMCOMM nonsense fit with us being interested in "radio technique" solely with a "personal aim"?  
Here is where I see your strong negative bias showing.  First, by labelling it 'nonsense' you are precluding any open-mindedness on your part.  That makes arguing over this rather more difficult.

But, developing one's skills for discipline and effectiveness is a personal aim, even if it is practiced in a manner that aids or assists another (at no charge).  It's much the same reason that a volunteer fireman might, for no pay, endure a fire, an accident scene, or some other dangerous rescue. They have solely a personal aim - even if it is rather oblique, such as "I want to help my community."
Quote
Or, to put it another way, what's "personal" about a radio service which allows a bunch of of First Responder wannabees to enable communications among both public and "for profit" agencies (such as private hospitals) when there are other Radio Services specifically created for that purpose?
There is no requirement for an emergency communicator in the Amateur Service to be a "First Responder wannabee," but the fact that you apparently term them to be such AS A GROUP leads me to believe that you have an ulterior motive behind wishing this entire use of Amateur Radio to go away. 

Amateur Radio may be used in lieu of many other radio services.  I have heard amateur users that had marine band, aviation band, citizens band, and railroad band services at their disposal, and could have used either service legally, practically, and legitimately for the exact same communication.  Hams still have autopatches that, while not equal to cellular service, still do interconnect one wirelessly to a landline instead of the "Radio Services specifically created for that purpose".
Quote
You are correct that, under the ITU rules, Administrations (in our case the FCC) are enjoined to write regulations to implement the ITU's wishes.  However, that does NOT give the FCC the authority to write regulations that fundamentally change the basic nature of our Service thereby turning it into something else that the ITU never intended it to be.
I presume you already read what I wrote above about my view of what the ITU - in one broad and encompassing statement - says, and how this does not "fundamentally change" or "turn into something else" the Amateur Service. 

And besides, as long as the FCC keeps any such communications within the national borders of the United States, the ITU regulations don't mean squat anyway.  The ITU was meant to create uniform regulations for services that transcend national boundaries, which is why nations who bind themselves to the ITU regulations are legally bound (that is, treaty as law) only to the extent that such services cross international borders.  A number of parts of the FCC's Amateur Service regulations are in place only to prevent interference to other nations' services as a result of the ITU "treaty."  If the FCC were to allow encryption of Amateur Service communications but the ITU did not, the FCC could easily add a rule that says such communications may not be directed to amateur stations in other countries, and thereby remain in accordance with ITU regulations.  Heck, the FCC even allows certain amateurs to be paid - I am not in agreement with it, but such communications are broadcasts, not QSOs, so there is no pay for interaction with other nations' amateurs here:
Quote from: FCC Part 97.113(a)4
The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week; schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other service as a control operator.
Quote
In my humble opinion, that's EXACTLY what the FCC did back when they added all that "emergency communications" eyewash that's still contained in Part 97-1(a).

And this fundamental change is probably also why the FCC and ARRL (et al) are now having such a hard time trying to cram EMCOMM activities (activities that, in many cases, are clearly being done for someone's "pecuniary interest" and have absolutely nothing to do with private persons exploring "radio technique") into our Service.

Any way you cut it, turning the Amateur Radio Service into the "First Responder Wannabe Radio Service" (as the FCC did with Part 97-1 and which the ARRL continues to try and do) absolutely flies in the face of both the spirit and the intent of the international definition of our Service.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
You obviously have strong feelings about this, and you're quite possibly willing to argue this to death as a result. But I hope I've stimulated some new thoughts on your part on this subject so that you don't feel the need to rehash the same arguments again.
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #76 on: July 13, 2013, 09:36:20 PM »

And besides, as long as the FCC keeps any such communications within the national borders of the United States, the ITU regulations don't mean squat anyway.  The ITU was meant to create uniform regulations for services that transcend national boundaries, which is why nations who bind themselves to the ITU regulations are legally bound (that is, treaty as law) only to the extent that such services cross international borders.  A number of parts of the FCC's Amateur Service regulations are in place only to prevent interference to other nations' services as a result of the ITU "treaty."  If the FCC were to allow encryption of Amateur Service communications but the ITU did not, the FCC could easily add a rule that says such communications may not be directed to amateur stations in other countries, and thereby remain in accordance with ITU regulations.  

Hogwash!

I suppose the NEXT thing you'll tell us is that, by FCC decree, amateur radio communications originating in the USA could be made to stop at the US border.  

I know (from personal experience because I live a mile from the US/Canadian border) that US amateur transmissions....even on our 2m and 70cm bands...DO NOT all stop at the border. Indeed, local US and Canadian hams hereabouts regularly communicate back and forth across that international boundary using each other's 2m and 70cm repeaters.  And trying to somehow stop such communication by "FCC decree" would have just about as much success as their stupid rule that said CBers were prohibited from working "skip" and that intercepting cell phone communications is a "no-no" (unless, of course, you are one of the US Government's CIA, DIA or NSA snoops!)  

The laws of physics can (and do) override all such bureaucratic nonsense.  Even my US cell phone works in Canada as I've got it programmed to search for a US-based cell tower.  

Oh, and by the way, our good friends in Canada have no such Part 97.1(a) "emergency communications" enabling gobbledygook written into THEIR governing regulations for our Service.  Except for international emergency, 3rd party communication and disaster relief, they never did, and probably never will.

But, don't take my word for it...I invite you to read their Radio Information Circulars (RICS) and Regulations By Reference (RBRs)...documents that constitute Canada's "Part 97"...for yourself: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf05478.html.  

I think you and others will be surprised at all the eyewash it doesn't contain.

Indeed, Part 97 is written in such a way that, unless something is specifically enabled in our Service, then its prohibited.  By contrast, in Canada (and in most other countries on the planet), unless something in our Service is specifically prohibited, then its enabled.

The truth is that the world of amateur radio (and other communication services) DOES NOT revolve around what the stupid FCC bureaucratic bumbledom says.  This is despite the fact that many US hams seem to think that what comes out of the mouths and keyboards of the gormless FCC pencil-pushers sitting on their (overpaid) finals in Washington is akin to the Sermon on the Mount.

It isn't.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF /  VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.com
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 09:38:44 PM by KB1SF » Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 961




Ignore
« Reply #77 on: July 13, 2013, 10:20:38 PM »

I guess N3HFS is correct. Seems that you only want to argue.

Quote
The truth is that the world of amateur radio (and other communication services) DOES NOT revolve around what the stupid FCC bureaucratic bumbledom says.  This is despite the fact that many US hams seem to think that what comes out of the mouths and keyboards of the gormless FCC pencil-pushers sitting on their (overpaid) finals in Washington is akin to the Sermon on the Mount.

Quote
Oh, and by the way, our good friends in Canada have no such Part 97.1(a) "emergency communications" enabling gobbledygook written into THEIR governing regulations for our Service.  Except for international emergency, 3rd party communication and disaster relief, they never did, and probably never will.

And if the ITU were the sole governing body, why does Canada need regulations as well? Or any country for that matter? You see that's where you logic fails. You can't say that the FCC has no power to regulate, and then site Canada's regulations as being ok. That is a double standard. Either the ITU governs completely for all countries, and precludes any countries regulations, or it does not. Not much middle ground there. If taken at face value what you say about the FCC, then the same logic needs to be applied to all countries. I can't "afford" to test your theory though. But you can if you want. Sooner or later ignoring the FCC is going to catch up with you. That's another thing the "high priced overpaid", as you say, bureaucrats also do.

BTW, you never did answer where in the ITU regulations that would preclude any countries regulations. When you can answer that, then maybe your arguments would have some credibility. Until then, all you say is just a lot of QRM.
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #78 on: July 14, 2013, 04:16:22 AM »

You can't say that the FCC has no power to regulate, and then site Canada's regulations as being ok. That is a double standard.

I never said any of that!

I said that the FCC had no authority to change the ITU's basis and purpose of our Service (as outlined in their definition) by writing implementing regulations that turned our Service into something else entirely.  And they still don't.

That's what they've clearly done in Part 97.1(a) because NONE of that "emergency communications" nonsense (or for that matter, building a "reservoir of trained operators and technicians" gobbledygook in Part 97.1 (d)) is contained in the original ITU definition.  

Again, would you please show me where the words "providing emergency communications to the public" or building a "reservoir of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts" appear in the original ITU definition?  

Maybe that's because none of that eyewash is there.

Canada, on the other hand, didn't add any of that Part 97.1 nonsense to its regulations for our Service.  They (and most other countries on the planet) simply implemented the ITU's definition and let it go at that.

Big difference.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf@blogspot.com
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 04:21:16 AM by KB1SF » Logged
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 212




Ignore
« Reply #79 on: July 14, 2013, 05:54:21 AM »

Canada, on the other hand, didn't add any of that Part 97.1 nonsense to its regulations for our Service.  They (and most other countries on the planet) simply implemented the ITU's definition and let it go at that.

Big difference.

Well, then I guess that in your view either some Canadian hams are operating illegally under the umbrella of the RAC's ARES, or the Canadian government is just flouting the ITU regulations as well:

Emergency Radio Operators Are Needed

As the incidence of disasters and emergencies of all types and causes increases, so does the need for emergency agencies to provide help in stricken areas. Major emergencies can strike anywhere, anytime, without warning.

Often, existing means of communications, be they landline telephone, cellular phone or wireless radio links, become unusable because they are overloaded or simply no longer exist. They get overloaded when too many persons try at the same time to dial for help or to check on a friend or family member in a disaster area. They can become non-existent when wires and towers topple and electrical supplies fail, due to acts of nature or terrorism.

When emergency agencies are required in a zone of disaster, their regular means of communications can be affected by the same disruptive causes as others. That creates a need for a supplemental or back-up communications system, one that comes complete with equipment and trained operators who are licenced by the Canadian government, all at no cost to the public or the agency involved. In fact, these men and women are volunteers, members of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) sponsored and operated by Radio Amateurs of Canada.

I guess that, next, you'll want me to research ham radio emcomm organizations on other continents.  Wanna bet they have them, too?

GAREC 2013 - Summary Report    
Written by G0DUB   
Friday, 28 June 2013 00:32

The ninth Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Conference, GAREC-2013, took place in Zurich, Switzerland hosted by the Union Schweizerischer Kurzwellen-Amateure (USKA) and was attended by 45 delegates from 14 countries. The theme of the conference was 'Do we need emergency communications in the 'first world''.

Presentations were received on;

    The effects of a loss of electrical power on a countries infrastructure and how amateur radio could provide support.

    The role of the International Telecommunications Union in promoting emergency communications.

    The structure of amateur radio emergency communications groups in India and Italy.

    Three different methods of providing digital communications structures for emergency email and file transfer.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 06:01:19 AM by N3HFS » Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #80 on: July 14, 2013, 06:39:57 AM »

Well, then I guess that in your view either some Canadian hams are operating illegally under the umbrella of the RAC's ARES, or the Canadian government is just flouting the ITU regulations as well

Indeed, that may very well be true.

But, once again, in Canada all that nonsense is not spelled out in chapter and verse via enabling regulation.  Sometimes I think many US hams feel they need to read Part 97 in order to know how to go to the bathroom.

It also seems to me that while it is certainly true that such things as "trunked" repeater systems and cell phones will be the first to go down in an emergency, real "First Responders" have also now started to realize that fact and are taking steps to build their own emergency "backup" communications systems into their emergency planning.  

This includes keeping a supply of those old, analog VHF or UHF hand-helds and repeater systems charged and ready to go in such situations.  What's more, such in-house backup usually costs them next to nothing to maintain.  That's because, very often their old communications infrastructure has remained in place when they made the move to a new trunked and/or encrypted system.

Unfortunately, our public persona as a group of horribly out-of-shape "old farts" using ancient analog (spelled "unsecure") technology "bricks" hanging from our overweight beer bellies certainly doesn't lend any added credibility to our cause, either.  In most cases, the real First Responders I've talked to would rather NOT have such "help" (thank you very much) because having to deal with "prima-donna" vigilantes like us while ALSO trying to handle the emergency at hand simply causes them more trouble than we're worth.

The bottom line here is that our "First Responder wannabe's" attempts to now encrypt such communications is a strong indicator that, regardless of what the FCC spells out in eye-watering detail in their stupid Part 97, our so-called "emergency" services are increasingly no longer needed...or more to the point...wanted.  

In many ways (and largely because we've allowed ourselves to become the "Radio Amish") our belated attempts to try and keep our Service relevant in the 21st Century is simply yet another exercise in "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

In that sense, legal or not, all that eyewash in 97.1(a) has now LONG since been overcome by events.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.com
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 07:11:11 AM by KB1SF » Logged
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 212




Ignore
« Reply #81 on: July 14, 2013, 08:00:56 AM »

I get the feeling that we are slowing coming towards a meeting of minds, Keith.   Smiley

I'm finally grasping your narrow world-view of amateur radio emergency communications, and I think you're coming to terms with the justification and acceptance of emergency communications within amateur radio worldwide.

This discussion has made me look deeper into this topic and I appreciate that.

73
Franz, N3HFS
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #82 on: July 14, 2013, 08:10:50 AM »

It seems that one thing people are forgetting is that the United States is a signatory to the ITU and therefore has an obligation to follow the ITU basic regulations, such as the prohibition of encryption on the ham bands.  The encryption of information for transmission by Pactor, packet, APRS and other data modes is NOT encryption to hide the information.  Anybody anywhere can receive and decode that data because the encryption method is in the public domain and is freely available to anyone.

What the applicants want is encryption where the primary intent IS to hide that information!  That is the reason for the request and also the reason that request should NOT be granted!  I doubt like heck that this NPR will be granted anyway now that the ARRL has weighed in with its comment to deny.

If you want to play with encryption, by all means go ahead and play--using one of the publicly available modes.  If you want to invent a new mode, go ahead!  Just make sure that you publish it before you actually use it on the bands--today the dissemination of that information is much easier than it used to be.  You can just put a notice on this site or any other ham site where the public has access with a pointer to where the key can be found on the internet!  BUT--if you want to hide the information so nobody else can decode/understand the content, get yourself a business radio license and the appropriate equipment or have license rights given you by the involved authorities for use on their frequencies.  Don't try to screw around with the ham bands--where such encryption has no place or right to be.  Problem solved.  73!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 08:14:20 AM by K1CJS » Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #83 on: July 14, 2013, 08:25:24 AM »

What U.S. ham has ever received a notice of violation from the ITU? Violation notices to U.S. hams will come from the FCC and they will reference the Part 97 rule that you violated. The ultimate authority for U.S. hams is the FCC and their regulations are in Part 97.

As was just stated in my previous post, the US is a signatory to the ITU and its regulations.  Although the hams in this country (the US) do answer to the FCC as their ultimate authority, the US could also have to answer to the ITU--and the World Court--as the planet's ultimate authority.  It's too bad that people don't realize this, but long gone are the days where the US was the watcher and guide for the free world.  People who still insist that that is the case haven't been keeping up with the news--or the goings on of this country and its internal wrongdoings. 
Logged
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 212




Ignore
« Reply #84 on: July 14, 2013, 08:45:42 AM »

The basic truth of human existence is that sovereignty is based on a people's ability to defend (or agress) against other peoples.  Nations and their associated governments are set up as a mechanism to define, organize, and empower this basic truth.

Nations will sign on to international agreements (treaties) when it serves their own purposes.  They will break them, too, when that serves their purpose.  There is no "world court" that can enforce a nation's adherence to international law, there are only militaries that can effect that change (see Iraq's modern history as a clear example of this).  Short of that, international diplomacy can be employed to convince a "scofflaw" nation that it is in their best interest to adhere to international agreements. 

World courts serve only as mouthpieces to justify and explain possible military and diplomatic efforts; such institutions are, on their own, powerless.  Even U.N. military deployments are composed of volunteer national contributions of soldiers and equipment that can be revoked at any time by the contributing nation(s).  There simply is no "planet's ultimate authority" outside of military might. 

Outside of national sovereignty there is only cooperation or intimidation.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #85 on: July 14, 2013, 08:54:57 AM »

Sorry Franz, but you're wrong.  There IS a 'World Court,' it is one of the functions/departments of the United Nations.  The only thing you're partially right about is there is no means to enforce their findings and or directives.  There is only co-operative international 'pressure' that can be enforced upon a defiant country--and even then that isn't something that can effect change--just as the international pressure that is now being put upon Iran and North Korea.

Added--There again, using the World Court to settle a scuffle about amateur radio--even between countries--is like using a club to kill a fly.  It's overkill.  
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 08:59:58 AM by K1CJS » Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #86 on: July 14, 2013, 09:08:23 AM »

If an individual country wishes to expand on this (as you say the FCC has done in the United States), I see no reason why this should be viewed as illegitimate.  

I wholeheartedly disagree.  

I do as well, but for this reason.  Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

So it should be with the ITU and the FCC.  The ITU says 'no encryption to obscure the meaning' which should be taken as a basic regulation that cannot be reversed just because someone wants to play with encryption on the ham bands.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #87 on: July 14, 2013, 09:13:28 AM »

One of the problems is that the spectrum we utilize belongs to the general public. Unless amateurs are providing some benefit to the general public we will soon find that spectrum being given to someone else who will provide benefit for the public....

Again, this will go back to the basic ITU regulations laid out.  Sure, a country can go and auction off higher frequency bands, but if those bands are still used for amateur communications in an adjoining country, the companies who 'buy' the rights to those bands will find their usefulness extremely limited. 

I don't see the wholesale auctioning off of the amateur bands being done to any great extent anytime soon.
Logged
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 212




Ignore
« Reply #88 on: July 14, 2013, 09:39:32 AM »

Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

So it should be with the ITU and the FCC.  The ITU says 'no encryption to obscure the meaning' which should be taken as a basic regulation that cannot be reversed just because someone wants to play with encryption on the ham bands.
The ITU exists to solve certain problems that pre-existed it. Those problems were specifically between nations.  When one nation had a service that interfered with another nation's service, a workable international agreement had to be hammered out and agreed to by all parties to solve that problem.

There is an implicit assumption that problems that existed solely within a nation could, should, and would be worked out internally by that nation's regulatory body.

If the FCC wishes to allow encryption within the amateur service, it most certainly has the sovereign power do so as long as this doesn't have implications that spill over its borders with other nations.  Only when the spillover is an issue across borders does a nation agree to partially give up its sovereignty in exchange for other nations' willingness to do the same for a common benefit.  For example, if U.S. hams were to hear Canadian hams talk amongst themselves with encrypted communications, the folks south of that border would hear these transmissions, but not have much to say about it.  It's nobody's business but the Canadians whether these are even amateur comms!  But if these were to seriously interfere with US amateurs' ability to continue using their service, then a dispute would need to be resolved using the ITU agreements as the basis for defining the arguments on each side.  I believe that this is precisely why certain transmitter power limits (on one or more bands - 440MHz?) are in effect in the U.S. border regions with other countries.
Logged
KB1SF
Member

Posts: 414


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #89 on: July 14, 2013, 09:41:25 AM »

I get the feeling that we are slowing coming towards a meeting of minds, Keith.

Perhaps.

Quote
'm finally grasping your narrow world-view of amateur radio emergency communications, and I think you're coming to terms with the justification and acceptance of emergency communications within amateur radio worldwide.

I think it's hardly a "narrow world-view" to point out that an Administration (namely our FCC) has taken the ITU's underlying basis and purpose for our Amateur Radio Service (as basically a "sandbox" for private persons to explore "radio technique" without compensation) and then added so-called "implementing regulations" that fundamentally change that basis and purpose into a "No Budding RF Engineer Left Behind" and/or "First Responder Wannabe" Radio Service.

Quote
This discussion has made me look deeper into this topic and I appreciate that.

Excellent! 

And I well realize that this discussion is not going to change people's minds...let alone immediately change the way the FCC looks at what we do.  This is particularly true as EMCOMM is now so thoroughly entrenched among our fellow US hams as a fundamental reason for our existence...as bogus as that idea may be.

However, the longest journey always begins with the first few steps.  And the realization that there's a fundamental disconnect between the ITU's definition of our Service and the FCC's implementing regulations for same is clearly one of those first steps.

Again, I invite you to have a look at my blog (kb1sf.blogspot.com) where I discuss this and a whole host of other areas where the FCC's implementing regulations for our Service fly in the face of both US federal and international law.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF /  VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.com
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!