[FADCA] Comments on recent Threads about Packet Networking in Florida

[Keating Floyd]

Hi, Bud, et al.

I'm one of those "Sideliners" who has been "riveted" by this discussion.

I appreciate, very much, all the work and dedication that has gone on
in the past several years by the "movers and shakers" - we wouldn't be
where we're at today, if not for them 'n' that.

A couple of points I've been pondering.

Inclusiveness.  A network can certainly support both emcomm and
"garden variety" users - they are not mutually exclusive.  We should
be working to coordinate and consolidate WHEREVER we can.  The ol' Ben
Franklin "we'll surely hang separately" surely applies, here, I do
believe.

We also have to work to provide the exciting experience for all our
users.  There is some chance that the emcomm folks may be "bread and
butter" - but (hopefully!) that's only needed on rare occasions.
However, whatever can be done to revitalize interest in this aspect of
the hobby is GREAT.  How about a D-Star/FPAC gateway somewhere, or
something?

Rants.  It does not help discussion to rant negatively about the way
other environments operate.  A negative rant is not conducive to the
above point - work towards integration and compatability and INCLUSIVE
activities.  What have YOU done lately that makes things work better
together, is what you should ask yourself before ranting about the
"other guys"!  They might actually be doing something better/different
that we should be looking at.

BTW: This was one of the most effective summary posts I've ever seen.
Nice work, Bud.  Keep it up, we're listening, and thank you!

Keating


On 10/29/07, bud Thompson <budt at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Deltona
> Sunday October 27
>
> The following is to clarify some of those issues that I can - either
> with facts or references to help clear up possible miss-conceptions.
> I have no comments on other items as (1) some of the technical
> concerns are above my pay grade and (2) to the extent that some
> comments may be bashing, flaming, or otherwise misleading.
>
> I feel I owe this to the SILENT MAJORITY on the sidelines who have not
> responded and who, even though interested :  (1) may not have specific
> experience to fully appreciate the  various views, and (2) might want
> to know the difference between what is pertinent and accurate, and
> what may be more esoteric, or in some cases, misleading information.
>
> Some of the references may be of  value to those who have not had
> those previous experiences.
>
> The information within the quotes below has been taken verbatim from
> several of the e-mails - not in any particular order of appearance or
> priority.
>
> I have classified my comments as FACT, REFERENCE, or OPINION.
>
>
> * * *
> "It's seems Bud was wrong when he said "No one really cares" in my
> previous RANT. It looks to me as if there are still plenty of people
> that care or  they would have not taken the time to contribute to this
> thread."
>
>
> FACT    * * * * * * *
> As of Friday October 25th - on these FADCA threads since late
> September . . .
>
> I found 20 messages contributed by eight people with subject "[FADCA]
> HAMS using Internet." One person who originated 7 messages, two people
> with 4 each, and five people with one each.
>
> Prior to that thread one started with subject [FADCA] Fpacnode  and
> the next response was titled (E. Central Florida Report).  I found a
> total of 13 messages with "RE: those subjects" from 6 people: One
> person with 6 contributions, two with 2 each, and three with one each.
>
> Of the total 33 messages thirteen persons contributed; one with 13
> messages, two with 4, two with 2, the rest with one.
>
> Three people contributed 64 percent of the messages - and, I'd guess -
> 90% of the information since several of the singles were simply, "I
> agree with . . ." or "I disagree with . . ."  . , . w/o further
> comment.
>
> I don't see this as "plenty of people, "  but I'm glad to see the
> interest.  I has been a while since we have had 13 people join in on a
> thread.
>
> There is, however, a marked lack of contributions by (1) the main FPAC
> movers and shakers who have the vast amount experience with FPAC, (2)
> FADCA directors of Districts or BOD members, or (3) known promoters of
> anything  ". . . other than FPAC  . . . "  . . that could be effected
> in the short term  -  until major funding (contributions?) for the
> latest and most promising network/protocol/hardware might be
> universally available.
>
> I doubt we are in serious danger of thus dying of sudden wealth in the
> near term.
>
> Following are some quotes from these e-mails followed by my comments.
>
> * * *
> "I'm starting to think we have two different groups here. Some who
> want to see a better "ham" radio network and some who want to see a
> better network for "EMCOMMS".
>
> * * *
> "While I'm all for helping out in an emergency and have done so in
> many disasters, I, just as you don't want to spend my weekends
> "working" as you call it on a network for just the "general public". I
> don't want to help build it just from EMCOMMS and Email. I guess we
> all have our alterior motives."
>
>
> FACT                         * * * * * * *
> In one of my original notes I said, "My interest is in building a
> local packet network for anyone who cares to use the WL2K SYSTEM for
> e-mail for EMCOMMs.  Local in my case is FADCA District #5 covering
> five counties in E Central Florida.  In the process anyone who can get
> on packet can use the network for anything they want to."
>
> There is no ulterior motive inferred in that statement.
>
> I don't see anything mutually exclusive here.  Why would a better ham
> radio network not also be a better ham radio network for EMCOMMs
> support   - or a better ham radio network for any purpose?  A ham
> network should be available for what ever legit purpose legit hams
> want to use it.
>
> Not all hams are interested in actively supporting EMCOMMs.
>
> Not all hams have the same level of interest in the activities in
> which other hams are involved.
>
> * * *
> "COMPATIBLE! Please define this as it seem you really lack the
> knowledge to know what is compatible
>
>
> OPINION                        * * * * * * *
> If a district/area has network sites/nodes interconnected by RF - say
> nodes 5, 6, 7, and 8 - and someone wants to add nodes 4  and 9 -
> communications through from 4 to 9 should be as transparent as
> possible.  That is my simple explanation - for which I have sufficient
> knowledge.
>
> ***
> "My biggest complaint with Rose is that it not self routing like
> Netrom or a Flexnet type node. Very seldom do I ever have a need to
> add a static route for my Netrom or Flexnet nodes."
>
> OPINION        * * * * * * *
> Whether self (dynamic) routing or fixed routing is best depends on the
> nature of network that is employed.  This old saw is a moot point for
> those who understand the differences between a Wide Area Network (WAN)
> and a Layered Network.  Those who need a short review of the two
> network types can check it out here:
>
> http://www.fadca.org/n0ia_5.html
>
> I believe a WAN benefits from self or dynamic routing - particularly
> over this peninsula.  The primary reason for this is the use of tall
> towers with long RF paths and a single frequency throughout the state.
> Some path qualities likely change often - even daily I'd supposed as
> propagation changes.  I would think a WAN sysop here in Florida would
> go crazy if dynamic routing were not employed.
>
> The Layered network ROSE routing scheme is fixed/static and generally
> does not need to be changed as backbones are point-to-point on
> dedicated frequencies and away from the LAN frequencies.  There is
> seldom any need to change / alter routing in this scheme.  Routing can
> be changed manually via internet for Linux sites or via RF on DOS or
> ROSE sites if needed.  The recent Linux FPAC upgrades are set up for
> alternate routing - relieving the sysops of keeping up with any
> temporary holes in the network.
>
> However - Problems may come where networks using different routing
> schemes meet - a discordance may occur due to addressing differences.
> This is the case where FPAC sites are neighbors with Netrom sites.  I
> believe that the Netrom portion of FPAC can eventually provide
> compatibility where needed.
>
>
> * * *
> 'I believe that the most damaging aspect of our hobby is the political
> influence of the ARRL. Nothing else even comes close. It has been this
> way since . . . . "'
>
>
> REFERENCE                     * * * * * * *
> (While I can't believe ARRL bashing got in to this thread - it does
> seem to get slipped into many ham radio threads!)
>
> Here is what Riley Hollingsworth, long time Special Counsel in the
> FCC's Enforcement Bureau, who is retiring in February of 2008,
> included in his "Advice from Riley Hollingsworth"  (See The ARRL
> Letter for this week: Vol. 26, No. 43 October 26, 2007:
>
> "#10. You may not always agree with the League, and that's fine. But
> I'm standing here before you tonight talking about enforcement because
> they never gave up. Take care of the one voice you have. You must
> never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the
> world. They just did."
>
>
> * * *
> "The good old days are gone and no one can bring them back  because
> most of the guys have moved on .  sedan network  not sure it still
> works as planned and it was a
> emergency network for long range message movement"
>
> OPINION                 * * * * * * *
> Most users moved on (out of packet) in the mid 90s when internet
> e-mail became available -  many hams got totally out of ham radio due
> to the availability of e-mail and/or the internet.
>
> The operative phrase above regarding Sedan is "long range" as compared
> to large file/message transfer.  Moving many 5K to 10K files/messages
> among widely-separated points in Florida using only existing or
> proposed 1200b/9.6kb packet networks, especially flat networks such as
> SEDAN or APRS, is not practical.  So far as I know SEDAN in Florida is
> a keyboarding network - and BBS-to-BBS forwarding is not permitted.
>
> We should be building a network that will let us do more than keyboard
> from here to there.  For those users who do not need to do anything
> beyond keyboard - SEDAN is there now and can be used so far as I know.
> That should be a fun place to play if you can find someone on the
> network for a QSO or a BBS you can reach.  No need to wait for the
> Layered Packet Network to get fully interconnected.
>
> On the other hand -combining slow (1200b / 9.6kb) ham radio LANS with
> ready access to the internet as an additional carrier/layer is far
> more promising in the now and near-term.  From a Mutual Aid
> Communications (MAC) viewpoint the Layered Network concept effectively
> extends connectivity across neighboring LANS for BBS-to-BBS type
> forwarding.
>
> NOTE: "BBS-to-BBS type" forwarding is used here in generic terms -it
> is not from one BBS to another BBS - (which can also be done on the
> Layered Network)  - but the efficient method used for message/file
> transfers from a WL2K client through a Telpac node on vhf or PMBO on
> HF.  A higher level of compression (B2F) is used than is presently
> supported by FBB BBS.
>
> Keyboarding also works on the Layered Packet network - with the
> same caveat as on Sedan - it takes two to Tango.
>
> * * *
> " I'm getting off this soapbox cause I really think when it comes down
> to it, it's not going to matter what anyone says it's will only matter
> what people do."
>
> OPINION                         * * * * * * *
> Absolutely! - The cheapest thing we can do is rant and rave about what
> is not being done or what could/should be done - and wait until
> someone else does it.  That puts off being able to have fun on packet
> or to support EMCOMMs or what ever is wanted.
>
> The least expensive thing we can do is to establish a legacy packet
> LAN to support the local Ham Community in place now and move on to
> what ever bigger and better things that might come about.
>
> * * *
> "I don't think anyone wants to help "EMCOMMS"
>
> FACT                         * * * * * * *
> I assume this was not in context!  - There are likely 400-500 active
> ARES/RACES members in the state who would disagree with this
> statement. That is 400-500% more than one "anyone."  "EMCOMMS" is
> EMergency COMMunicaitonS - ostensibly ham radio support of supplying
> communications during times of Communications Emergency.
>
> * * *
> "Did you forget we are HAMS."
>
> REFERENCE                     * * * * * * *
> Well said!
>
> In a QST editorial titled "When All Else Fails - Amateur Radio"-
>
> ". . . the traditional role of the Amateur Radio communicator no
> longer matches what the emergency management official is looking for.
> Replacing their missing telephone is no longer enough. To do their
> jobs, they also need email and possibly Web access. . ."  - David
> Sumner, K1ZZ ARRL CEO in "It seems to Us;" QST September, 2007 p.9.
>
> OPINION - We must never forget the real meaning of "When All Else
> Fails - Amateur Radio."  We need to keep it simple - it is not
> practical for us to build a ham radio system to 'replace' - or even
> come close to replacing - the tax-based multi-back -up Public Service
> and well-funded commercial services when all else has failed.
>
> When left totally in the dark (inside the Last Mile) - two hospitals
> that need to communicate or an Incident Command that can no longer
> communicate with the EOC will take anything they can get - formal or
> informal voice exchange, e-mails over ham radio - even runners between
> the two points if within reasonable range.
>
> I doubt when the ship hits the sand that the Served Agency will be
> expecting to browse the web using a local ham radio link.  However,
> they will expect whatever backup Amateur Radio provides to be
> organized - and work.
>
> * * *
> "I disagree I am 30 years younger than you, and it's my generation
> that going to clean-up this mess later."
>
>
> OPINION                        * * * * * * *
> Later?  - but this is now, not later - why not use your expertise now
> for the good of the order?   Why wait?
>
> Thirty years ago my generation was actively participating in 'working'
> at developing communications systems/networks for hams to use - we
> were not standing by waiting to clean up someone else's mess.
>
> * * *
> "There are much better alternative to using ROSE, telpac and Winlink.
> One just needs to look at what other states are doing remember Florida
> is really the only place in the using US using ROSE."
>
>
> FACT/OPINION /REFERECE                      * * * * * * *
> ROSE is a protocol Telpac is a program and Winlink is a system.
>
> I don't recall seeing a subsequent post suggesting anything else
> specific that is a 'better alternative' though I remember someone
> asking.
>
> OPINION:  I believe the FPAC/Linux gurus would disagree - and my guess
> is they, like I, have been quiet since this started  - busy "working"
> on the network we have in favor of actually getting something done for
> the hear and now rather than rant about what should/could be done.
>
> FACT: K4GBB has recently helped a guy in VA get Linux FPAC Telpac
> going.  A year ago WA1LRL put up a Linux FPAC node in Michigan and
> joined in on the "French/Fla" network - I'm sorry to report that this
> past summer he became an SK and no one has taken over his node.
> TI2HAS-8 is a Linux/FPAC node in Central America on the network.  I
> see VK2TV-11 on the network but I have no idea who/where he is - or if
> it is active.
>
> FACT: Linux/FPAC and certainly Telpac and Winlink are not restricted
> to France and Florida.  Any group may use these that wants to. I fully
> expect that as Linux FPAC becomes more stable and the word gets out
> more local groups around the country will give it a try.
>
> The Winlink system is the most widely e-mail over ham radio system
> employed by EMCOMMs groups in the US and Canada.
>
> REFERENCE http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wl2kemcomm/
> Those who are  interested in these concepts could join this group to
> see what is happening with WL2K/ECOMMS/Packet around the world and in
> 'other states.'
>
> It is a Yahoo Group where WL2K users (mostly part of  ARES/RACES
> groups in the US) discuss implementation of WL2K for EMCOMMs using
> packet/networks and HF.  There is much talk of EMCOMMs support,
> including use of packet, outside WL2K-specific applications.  I've not
> noticed anyone there talk about packet "network" except in terms of
> X1-J/TheNet, NetROM nodes, etc.  I believe some in the NE are using
> the PC FLEX network.  I believe that Texnet in West Texas is no longer
> viable - but have not heard much about that lately.  What networking
> there is otherwise is likely firm-ware based.
>
> That group presently has 1,958 active members world wide.
>
> In my Winlink For Dummies group -
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LOADING_WL2K_USER_PROGRAMS/
>
>  I ask new members if there is a packet network within 25 miles:
>
> The purpose is to help someone who doesn't know if there is one to
> find out from someone in the group who does know - I've not kept
> statistics - but -  Generally many newbees do not know - and we've
> been able to steer them to one occasionally - but we don't hear much
> on that group about anything but a 'digi' or "node".
>
> That group, started in December 2005, presently has 1,111 members
> world
> wide who are at some level of learning how to load, configure and use
> the WL2K client programs.  More than 450 have unsubscribed - having
> completed what ever level of the coursework was desired.
>
> Why are these various groups not using FPAC?  Likely because most are
> recent start-ups or recently re-furbishing old packet site/networks
> and are satisfied with a digipeater that can get them to a Telpac
> node.  There are some places where broader networks are being
> refurbished - NY and PA I know of - most likely many others.  It isn't
> likely these established networks that are being re-visited will
> change network schemes to FPAC.
>
> Likewise it is also not likely the existing FPAC sites in Florida will
> change to a older legacy scheme.  Especially with the Linux-based FPAC
> there is hope of being able to update to the next,  and after that, to
> the next thing that might be of value.
>
> It would not surprise me that a Windows-based networking scheme might
> appear on the horizon at some time.
>
> * * *
> "If there was something other than ROSE, telpac and Winlink you might
> have some more interest around here. "
>
>
> OPINION           * * * * * * *
> If that is the case then someone "around here" should establish
> "something other than .  . ."  and find out if any additional local
> players join the very few that are using the network now.
>
> * * *
> "Look at Telpac... this is a bbs killer."
>
>  FACT           * * * * * * *
> ? I'm not sure what that means.  Telpac is not a BBS - it is a
> bridge/gateway for a packet user to exchange SMTP E-mail with an
> internet Central Mail Server.  Telpacs and packet BBSs are devices
> that can co-exist on a user LAN.
>
> OPINION - These last two quotes sound like FPAC/WL2K bashing.
>
> * * *
> "On the other hand I been looking more at Web base BBS software
> like OpenBCM and feeding with FBB."
>
> ***
> "There won't be any internet in residence home when a storm
> hits but we will still have data capabilities in our hardened telpac
> sites"
>
> * * *
> "Yea, that's what we need proprietary D-Star...I thing your operative
> word is "hardened" telpac sites. How many of those are there? Does
> every telpac site in Florida have emergency backup?"
>
>
> OPINION        * * * * * * *
> It is not necessary for every telpac site to be hardened or have
> emergency backup.
>
> In local EMCOMMs plans it is prudent  to have Telpac nodes out on the
> LANS (even at hams QTHs) - in addition to Telpacs co-located with
> Linux/FPAC LAN/Switch sites.  This enhances the Mutual Aid
> Communications (MAC) concept when an area is inside the Last Mile and
> users must traverse the network to get to an area outside the Last
> Mile that has Telpac(s) with internet still avaialble. The E-Central
> Florida network from Melbourne through to Jacksonville is set up for
> MAC support.  That can extend as far as the linked network has RF
> connectivity via backbones.
>
> FACT        * * * * * * *
> Hardened sites for Telpacs - In my District and nearby we have several
> Telpac nodes from Melbourne through to Orange Park (JAX).  All the
> Linux LAN/Switch sites have Telpacs.  Here is the current list of
> Telpacs and what I know:
>
> Melbourne LAN 145.09
>   Melbourne Switch Telpac***
>   KN6KB-10 Telpac***
> [no RF link to Orlando]
> Orlando LAN 145.07
>  Orange County EOC Telpac
>  Altamonte Springs EOC Telpac
>  Seminole County EOC Telpac
>  Lake County EOC Telpac
>  Orlando Switch Telpac***
> [9.6kb RF link to DeLand]
> DeLand LAN  144.91, 446.65
>    DeBary EOC Telpac* * * 9.6kb 446.65 LAN
>    DeLand EOC Telpac 9.6kb 446.65 LAN
>    DeLand Switch Telpac
>    N0IA-10 Telpac**** (Also tested on Orlando LAN)
> [9.6kb RF link to DAB]
> DAB LAN 145.050
>    Edgewater EOC Telpac (Also tested on Deland and Orlando LANS)
> [9.6kb RF link to STA]
> STA LAN  144.990
>   No Telpacs
>   [9.6kb RF link to OPK]
> Orange Park LAN 144.93
>    OPK Switch Telpac
>    WX4J-10 Telpac***
>    KC4OUA-10Telpac***
>
> Telpacs on Central Florida LANs not yet linked to the above by RF:
> Ocala EOC (or PD)
> Gainesville EOC
> Lake County EOC
> K4GBB FPACSwitch Site***
> W5TRW-10***
> K4LSB-10***
> KC4MCQ-10***
>
> All EOCs and all Switch sites except Orlando have automatic change
> over to emergency power.  All EOCs are considered hardened except for
> DeBary - but that building has been there since the late 60s so far as
> I know.
>
> Sites marked with *** are likely at QTHs or are not otherwise
> considered hardened.   The Orlando switch and N0IA-10 are at my QTH.
> When the wind is going to blow - down comes the tower until after the
> blow - then up goes the tower and on goes the 7500w generator if
> needed.  The Melbourne switch is too close to the coast to be
> considered hardened.
>
> The Seminole County EOC is the first back-up to the State EOC.
>
> * * *
> ". . . without having a statewide or regionalwide nonprofit
> organization that can take donations and afford to purchase equipment,
> tower rents, and personnel to service this type of system a high
> baudrate wide bandwidth system will not happen any time soon, we would
> be better off all buying a Dstar system for every county and
> installing
> it at a mutual aid tower site under the umbrella of interoperability
> with the
> state."
>
> OPINION        * * * * * * *
> Yes, funding from outside the Ham Radio community is slow to develop
> in most places.  Getting D-Star or some other high speed scheme
> working may take place in individual areas where some group has
> garnered funding - but with so few Ham Radio Communities now on the
> packet network at legacy costs - where is this interest and funding
> going to be derived for wide-spread application?
>
> One D-Star site does not a network make.
>
> If we continue building the (legacy) network for the now - the sites
> will be in place for something like D-Star when the money starts
> flowing.
>
> Keep in mind - few Ham Radio repeater sites were established with RF
> 'backbone" inter links in mind.  So summarily locating D-Star at
> analog ham repeater sites will not guarantee RF link capability to the
> next D-Star site.  In most cases - with Layered Packet network sites
> that are inter-connected by UHF backbones - the sites are already
> within reach of each other - Adding D-Star to the Layered Network
> sites might just make more sense than adding D-Star to many existing
> analog repeater sites.
>
> (When serious digital repeater groups start looking for sites - who
> knows what could happen with that funding and Layered Packet Network
> sites?)
>
> * * *
> "Hi Guys, I have to use telnet and UDP connects to and from my N4JOA
> BBS to other BBS's only because our local packet lan network can't
> connect to any other BBS's on RF. I don't like the idea of having to
> use the internet for packet but I have no choice. I can connect to
> only one other packet BBS via RF at no fault of my own"
>
> OPINION        * * * * * * *
> I feel your pain.  This is the normal pitfall of building or
> rebuilding a packet network locally w/o wide-spread
> support/coordination with Ham radio communities/groups.  Devices
> (BBSs, LAN/Switches, Telpacs, Digis' etc,) become isolated until
> neighbor groups start working toward RF connectivity.  The only
> solution is to get with some folks in the adjacent Ham Communities in
> several directions to see if they would be interested in establishing
> a LAN for that community - and then linking via RF to/through yours.
>
> It is not your fault - you are the leader!
>
> * * *
> "These days all PC have Web Browser and everyone at almost every
> age group knows how to use them. This is a easy way for people to
> login from the Internet and/or RF so they **will** become interested
> again. We need users in order to grow our network, users need to see
> that Packet is cool and exciting
> or they will just continue using the Internet and packet will die."
>
>
> OPINION        * * * * * * *
> I agree that we need many more users.  With users come experience and
> suggestions/desire for more capability.  With that comes more interest
> among the movers and shakers to provide such - that is the challenge
> for the movers and shakers.
>
> As for Web Browser log on via RF - Oh, YES!  I'd sure like that. . .
>
> Let's get someone demonstrating a proof-of-principle over an RF link
> between a home QTH and a server/site 25 miles away.   The antenna at
> the user site should not be more than 25 ft agl and unless dedicated
> to this single purpose should not be a fixed beam.
>
> Once that is effectively demonstrated - Let's find out what the
> associated RF cost and associated hardware cost is at the server site
> and the cost of the user hardware (radio, feed line, antenna, etc.)
> Certainly that can't be anywhere near the cost of a D-Star set up.
> I'd guess that the user port for the server could be added to Linux
> FPAC sites and work along side the legacy packet user port(s.)
>
> Perhaps this is a first step toward getting more people on the
> network.
>
> I'm sitting here wondering if my 13 year old granddaughter who has
> known nothing but broadband access will think it is cool using a web
> browser when the effective throughput rate might be, say 10KB -12KB
> over a local Ham Radio LAN to a server site.  What baud rate will be
> required on the RF link to make her experience 'familiar' - how much
> will user end gear cost?  Can this be extended to users' tactical
> kit-bags and be used with portable antennas, etc?
>
> If the familiarity of using a browser will bring people to packet (and
> I doubt it) - the new WL2K user client Paclink MP is supported by a
> number of familiar e-mail clients as well as a Web browser-based
> E-mail client.  I've not tried the latter yet but it should work FB.
> However that is not browser-based to RF - just client browser-based to
> the Ham Radio Paclink MP e-mail server on a computer LAN.
>
> -                 SUMMARY                 -
>
> So we do have choices - we can do something now that will work,
> improve on it over time as we learn -  or we can wait until someone
> else provides something better.
>
> It is one of local choice - local ham radio communities (generally
> county-based) can get involved now using legacy packet at 1200b and
> 9.6kb at minimal expense - or simply wait until later when things are
> faster w/o any guarantee of being easier or cheaper.
>
> I suggest that so far as individual ham radio operators are
> concerned - the cost of an individual's gear is paramount.
>
> 73,
>
> bud N0IA
>
> _______________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
>
>