Using family radios or walkie talkies in lieu of baby monitors

[Tripp Knightly]

I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.

Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
walkie talkies.

Key benefits would be:

a) Far larger channel / subchannel selection would alleviate
interference

b) Some radios have ways to embed codes to further squelch others'
transmissions

c) I can use the things as more than just baby monitors - more
practical

Downsides seem to be:

1) longer range might mean cleaner transmissions, but also you
sacrifice your privacy some

2) greater sensitivity means you're potentially open to more
interference absent having (c) above implemented

3) They don't have the light meters like baby monitors, though I think
there are some units out there w/ vibrate capability

My key questions are:

- Has anybody used these radios & if so what are their experiences?

- Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors
such that you can listen in? (My concern is that VOX / voice
activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)

Thanks for any / all input!

- TK

[Richard G Amirault]

All the FRS radios I am aware of cannot be used this way (plus it would be
against the regulations) because they have a time-out feature to limit
transmissions.

[Radioman]

> Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
> walkie talkies.
>
> Key benefits would be:
>
> a) Far larger channel / subchannel selection would alleviate
> interference


Subtones don't create more "channels".


> b) Some radios have ways to embed codes to further squelch others'
> transmissions


Subtones don't prevent interference.


> c) I can use the things as more than just baby monitors - more
> practical


Why?


> Downsides seem to be:
>
> 1) longer range might mean cleaner transmissions, but also you
> sacrifice your privacy some


Baby monitors can be great fun in apartment complexes. They allow you to know
your neighbors better then with just their cordless phones.


> 2) greater sensitivity means you're potentially open to more
> interference absent having (c) above implemented


Receiver or microphone sensitivity?


> 3) They don't have the light meters like baby monitors, though I think
> there are some units out there w/ vibrate capability


?????????????


> My key questions are:
>
> - Has anybody used these radios & if so what are their experiences?


I use my FRS radios.


> - Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors
> such that you can listen in? (My concern is that VOX / voice
> activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)


I have used one as a crossband repeater for ham receive only.

[Phil Stripling]

(Tripp Knightly) writes:

> I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
> Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
> neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.
>
> Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
> walkie talkies.

Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_
interference from _your_ babies?

Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr95_00.html
and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct
your attention, though, to 95.193(a):
You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way
communications only to establish communications
with another person, send an emergency message,
provide traveler assistance, make a voice page,
or to conduct a brief test.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

[Tripp Knightly]

Richard G Amirault > wrote in message >...
> All the FRS radios I am aware of cannot be used this way (plus it would be
> against the regulations) because they have a time-out feature to limit
> transmissions.

Well, I guess I can see how the always-on broadcast feature could
create a tragedy of commons if lots of people used them that way. An
interesting alternative might be to have a remote mic'ing where the
receiver triggers a (15 sec? 30 sec?) transmission on the unit you
want to transmit. Not that regulations don't have something to say
about that as well...

[Tripp Knightly]

Phil Stripling > wrote in message >...
> (Tripp Knightly) writes:
>
> > I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
> > Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
> > neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.
> >
> > Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
> > walkie talkies.
>
> Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_
> interference from _your_ babies?
>
> Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr95_00.html
> and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct
> your attention, though, to 95.193(a):
> You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way
> communications only to establish communications
> with another person, send an emergency message,
> provide traveler assistance, make a voice page,
> or to conduct a brief test.
> --
> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
> Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
> http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

Phil, baby (sic) --

One person's harrassment is always another's communication.

Yeah, I know they're subject to rules (not withstanding their
enforcement or lack thereof). But It almost seems to me that what you
cite supports my application of FRS as fair use. Not to get
litigious, but absent seeing legal rulings to the contrary, using VOX
functionality potentially qualifies on at least 2 of 5 of those
reasons. (I'm sure your emminently qualified to do so, but don't
waste your time looking them up!)

Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
example). Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:

"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
with another person."

But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
is

-TK

[G. M. Alf]

On 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0700, (Tripp
Knightly) wrote:
....
>Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
>completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
>example)...

Imagine the vocabulary the child will learn when the neighborhood kids
take note of the system.

>Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
>95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:
>
>"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
>with another person."

I believe Phil assumed you knew that FRS is intended to be used as a
two way voice service between humans.

>But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
>is

Seems more like you are trying to justify an action that doesn't sit
very high on the ladder of radio etiquette. But then I am sure the
child will monitor the frequency before gurgling or crying to insure
that he/she does not interfere with an ongoing exchange.

Mike

[Phil Stripling]

(Tripp Knightly) writes:

>It almost seems to me that what you
> cite supports my application of FRS as fair use.

"Almost" and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Go for it, hon.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

[stewart]

(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message >...
> - Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors

NO!

>(My concern is that VOX / voice
> activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)

Too bad - this service is not designed for broadcast applications...
the 49Mhz and 900Mhz services you mentioned are.

I would guess that the reason baby monitor products don't have CTCSS
codes is that there are too many idiots and lawyers out there who
would sue the radio companies if anything happened to any kid being
monitored by one of those products - claiming they couldn't hear their
baby because they didn't understand how CTCSS worked. Blame it on our
litigation-crazy society.

> Thanks for any / all input!

You're welcome!

> - TK

- Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

[Tripp Knightly]

G. M. Alf > wrote in message >...
> On 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0700, (Tripp
> Knightly) wrote:
> ...
> >Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
> >completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
> >example)...
>
> Imagine the vocabulary the child will learn when the neighborhood kids
> take note of the system.
>
> >Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
> >95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:
> >
> >"You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
> >with another person."
>
> I believe Phil assumed you knew that FRS is intended to be used as a
> two way voice service between humans.
>
> >But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
> >is
>
> Seems more like you are trying to justify an action that doesn't sit
> very high on the ladder of radio etiquette. But then I am sure the
> child will monitor the frequency before gurgling or crying to insure
> that he/she does not interfere with an ongoing exchange.
>
> Mike

You're being overly alarmist, but I think etiquette died not long
after FRS hit the mainstream at Walmart. Tell my neighbors' kids who
insist on conducting their Eminemesque banter on 4-20, for example.

[John L. Wilkerson Jr.]

(Tripp Knightly) wrote in
om:

>
> You're being overly alarmist, but I think etiquette died not long
> after FRS hit the mainstream at Walmart. Tell my neighbors' kids
who
> insist on conducting their Eminemesque banter on 4-20, for
example.

So what the hell... you figure then you may as well also join the
degenerates out there who care nothing for etiquette, as well as
the regulations. Thanks for helping to contribute to the
corruption of FRS.

--
John L. Wilkerson Jr. >
NOTE: This address is used for Usenet posting ONLY!
All incoming email is extensively screened for spam.

[Tripp Knightly]

"John L. Wilkerson Jr." > wrote in message >...
> (Tripp Knightly) wrote in
> om:
>
> >
> > You're being overly alarmist, but I think etiquette died not long
> > after FRS hit the mainstream at Walmart. Tell my neighbors' kids
> who
> > insist on conducting their Eminemesque banter on 4-20, for
> example.
>
> So what the hell... you figure then you may as well also join the
> degenerates out there who care nothing for etiquette, as well as
> the regulations. Thanks for helping to contribute to the
> corruption of FRS.

And the alarmism continues. My OP is lost from this thread, but I
don't even own a radio (yet) and am not even sure I'm going to get one
(at least for this purpose). Besides, in practice it would behoove me
to use channel codes w/ minimal to no traffic in my neighborhood so
that I don't hear garbage on my own monitor, which marginalizes the
etiquette concern.

Ultimately, I'd blame the FCC's management of spectrum... but that's
akin to shaking one's fist at the moon.

[Phil Stripling]

(Tripp Knightly) writes:

> And the alarmism continues. My OP is lost from this thread, but I

Perhaps lost to you, but not to the rest of us. I've "reprinted" below for
your edification.

> I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
> Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
> neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.
>
> Seems to me a better route to go might be to use familfamily radios /
> walkie talkies.
>
> Key benefits would be:
>
> a) Far larger channel / subchannel selection would alleviate
> interference
>
> b) Some radios have ways to embed codes to further squelch others'
> transmissions
>
> c) I can use the things as more than just baby monitors - more
> practical
>
> Downsides seem to be:
>
> 1) longer range might mean cleaner transmissions, but also you
> sacrifice your privacy some
>
> 2) greater sensitivity means you're potentially open to more
> interference absent having (c) above implemented
>
> 3) They don't have the light meters like baby monitors, though I think
> there are some units out there w/ vibrate capability
>
> My key questions are:
>
> - Has anybody used these radios & if so what are their experiences?
>
> - Do these radios provide for full-time broadcast a la baby monitors
> such that you can listen in? (My concern is that VOX / voice
> activated capability may not let me hear all that I need to.)
>
> Thanks for any / all input!

Notice that in your original "lost" post, you want "full-time broadcast,"
not two-way communication, a point you have conveniently forgotten. Notice
that VOX isn't satisfactory to you, as it may not let you hear all you need
to. Your concern is to have CTCSS to squelch others' transmissions as you
broadcast your own full-time interference.

Full-time broadcast, hon, is not two-way communication.

And you're welcome for any and all input, as you requested.

If you've lost any of your other posts, please feel free to ask for it to
be recalled for you.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

[[email protected]]

In alt.radio.family Tripp Knightly > wrote:
> Phil Stripling > wrote in message >...
>> (Tripp Knightly) writes:
>>
>> > I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
>> > Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
>> > neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.
>> >
>> > Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
>> > walkie talkies.
>>
>> Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_
>> interference from _your_ babies?
>>
>> Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by
>> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr95_00.html
>> and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct
>> your attention, though, to 95.193(a):
>> You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way
>> communications only to establish communications
>> with another person, send an emergency message,
>> provide traveler assistance, make a voice page,
>> or to conduct a brief test.
>> --
>> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
>> Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
>> http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

> Phil, baby (sic) --

> One person's harrassment is always another's communication.

> Yeah, I know they're subject to rules (not withstanding their
> enforcement or lack thereof). But It almost seems to me that what you
> cite supports my application of FRS as fair use. Not to get
> litigious, but absent seeing legal rulings to the contrary, using VOX
> functionality potentially qualifies on at least 2 of 5 of those
> reasons. (I'm sure your emminently qualified to do so, but don't
> waste your time looking them up!)

There are good reasons for the current regulations for FRS.

Notice that FRS units do not even have the function that
you need to do what you what to do(VOX is intended primilarly
for use with a hands-free headset)-it works poorly otherwise
in most situations.

First of all-FRS has way too much range for your purposes,
and the radio will transmit ALL local sounds, including
ones that you might not want to be broadcast for a mile or
more in all directions-basically, you're BUGGING your own
house!
Of course, you would be tying up a FRS channel nearly
non-stop for long periods of time(the channels are suposed
to be SHARED).
Doing the above is downright RUDE, as well as a violation
of FCC regulations.

Also, CTCSS(sub-codes) are NOT channels-they are just
a selective speaker muting system(squelch)-so you won't
hear other users on the channel, BUT if more than 1
user is transmitting at the same time, both users will
be interfered with(even though one or both might not
know it, except they don't hear some of what they should hear).
IOW, the sub-codes are really are quiet codes.

> Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
> completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
> example). Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
> 95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:

A infant crying or cooing is sort of stretching the ides of
voice communications-as generally voice communications
presuppose that a actual lanuage be used.

The parent that coos back is nonsense-the infant's unit
will be randomly transmitting, so the infant will not
hear the parent much of the time(an FRS radio is NOT a
full-duplex device, so when it's transmitting, it is not
receiving, and vice-versa).
What you are descriving is NOT 2-way communications, but
2 one way communications, and again-this is NOT within the
FRS regulations.

> "You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
> with another person."

See above.

> But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
> is

Correct, but common sense should tell you that non-stop
communications in a SHARED communications service is selfish and
rude!!

> -TK

Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the
way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally
designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90%
standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while.

MK

[Daniel Martin]

Crap! I Have to agree with Stewart re the wired intercom. CRAP CRAP CRAP!
Actually personbally I don't like the idea of subjecting infants to R.F.
even in small doses.... Where did I put my tinfoil hat?

Dan

"stewart" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tripp Knightly) wrote in message
>...
> > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the
> > > way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally
> > > designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90%
> > > standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while.
> > >
> > > MK
> >
> > Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response.
>
> Too bad it is wrong.
>
> You shouldn't use an FRS radio as a broadcast device, but this ISN'T
> the reason why you shouldn't. It has more to do with common sense and
> being a good citizen/neighbor, and sharing, that kind of thing.
>
> If you want to be a dick, just buy a FRS "base station" and put a rock
> on the transmitter button - I can assure you it isn't going to
> "overheat" putting out that WHOPPING 500mW (drill some extra cooling
> holes in the case, if you are THAT worried about it)... but then,
> hopefully, some radio-savvy neighbor will DF you and turn you into the
> FCC.
>
> Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom
> between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to
> come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days.
>
> - Stewart
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

[stewart]

(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message >...
> Richard G Amirault > wrote in message >...
> > All the FRS radios I am aware of cannot be used this way (plus it would be
> > against the regulations) because they have a time-out feature to limit
> > transmissions.
>
> Well, I guess I can see how the always-on broadcast feature could
> create a tragedy of commons if lots of people used them that way. An
> interesting alternative might be to have a remote mic'ing where the
> receiver triggers a (15 sec? 30 sec?) transmission on the unit you
> want to transmit. Not that regulations don't have something to say
> about that as well...

Baloney. This is verboten for at least two reasons:

1) You must monitor the frequency for activity before transmitting.
2) You can't hook up external apparatus on FRS.


- Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

[Tripp Knightly]

wrote in message >...
> In alt.radio.family Tripp Knightly > wrote:
> > Phil Stripling > wrote in message >...
> >> (Tripp Knightly) writes:
> >>
> >> > I recently purch'd 2 diff sets of baby monitors (both 49 & 900 Mhz).
> >> > Both were susceptible more than I liked to interference from, ie,
> >> > neighbor's babies (god bless 'em) and cordless phones.
> >> >
> >> > Seems to me a better route to go might be to use family radios /
> >> > walkie talkies.
> >>
> >> Tripp, hon -- why are you going to harrass other FRS users with _your_
> >> interference from _your_ babies?
> >>
> >> Believe it or not, FRS radios are subject to rules; kindly drop by
> >> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/47cfr95_00.html
> >> and take a look at the set of rules beginning at 95.191. I would direct
> >> your attention, though, to 95.193(a):
> >> You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way
> >> communications only to establish communications
> >> with another person, send an emergency message,
> >> provide traveler assistance, make a voice page,
> >> or to conduct a brief test.
> >> --
> >> Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
> >> Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
> >> http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
>
> > Phil, baby (sic) --
>
> > One person's harrassment is always another's communication.
>
> > Yeah, I know they're subject to rules (not withstanding their
> > enforcement or lack thereof). But It almost seems to me that what you
> > cite supports my application of FRS as fair use. Not to get
> > litigious, but absent seeing legal rulings to the contrary, using VOX
> > functionality potentially qualifies on at least 2 of 5 of those
> > reasons. (I'm sure your emminently qualified to do so, but don't
> > waste your time looking them up!)
>
> There are good reasons for the current regulations for FRS.
>
> Notice that FRS units do not even have the function that
> you need to do what you what to do(VOX is intended primilarly
> for use with a hands-free headset)-it works poorly otherwise
> in most situations.
>
> First of all-FRS has way too much range for your purposes,
> and the radio will transmit ALL local sounds, including
> ones that you might not want to be broadcast for a mile or
> more in all directions-basically, you're BUGGING your own
> house!
> Of course, you would be tying up a FRS channel nearly
> non-stop for long periods of time(the channels are suposed
> to be SHARED).
> Doing the above is downright RUDE, as well as a violation
> of FCC regulations.
>
> Also, CTCSS(sub-codes) are NOT channels-they are just
> a selective speaker muting system(squelch)-so you won't
> hear other users on the channel, BUT if more than 1
> user is transmitting at the same time, both users will
> be interfered with(even though one or both might not
> know it, except they don't hear some of what they should hear).
> IOW, the sub-codes are really are quiet codes.
>
> > Besides, if they're used for 2-way, than your citation becomes
> > completely irrelevant (imagine the parent that coos back, for
> > example). Indeed, you conveniently left out the first sentence of
> > 95.193(a) which addresses 2-way:
>
> A infant crying or cooing is sort of stretching the ides of
> voice communications-as generally voice communications
> presuppose that a actual lanuage be used.
>
> The parent that coos back is nonsense-the infant's unit
> will be randomly transmitting, so the infant will not
> hear the parent much of the time(an FRS radio is NOT a
> full-duplex device, so when it's transmitting, it is not
> receiving, and vice-versa).
> What you are descriving is NOT 2-way communications, but
> 2 one way communications, and again-this is NOT within the
> FRS regulations.
>
> > "You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications
> > with another person."
>
> See above.
>
> > But if nothing else, you've certainly validated that free legal advice
> > is
>
> Correct, but common sense should tell you that non-stop
> communications in a SHARED communications service is selfish and
> rude!!
>
> > -TK
>
> Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the
> way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally
> designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90%
> standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while.
>
> MK

Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response.

[stewart]

(Tripp Knightly) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...

> > Oh, BTW, most FRS gear probably will not last long used the
> > way you want you to use it-the transmitters are generally
> > designed for a ICAS duty cycle(5% transmitting, 5% receiving, 90%
> > standby), so the radio will probably overheat and fail after a while.
> >
> > MK
>
> Thanks. That's a thoughtful informative and sensible response.

Too bad it is wrong.

You shouldn't use an FRS radio as a broadcast device, but this ISN'T
the reason why you shouldn't. It has more to do with common sense and
being a good citizen/neighbor, and sharing, that kind of thing.

If you want to be a dick, just buy a FRS "base station" and put a rock
on the transmitter button - I can assure you it isn't going to
"overheat" putting out that WHOPPING 500mW (drill some extra cooling
holes in the case, if you are THAT worried about it)... but then,
hopefully, some radio-savvy neighbor will DF you and turn you into the
FCC.

Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom
between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to
come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days.

- Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

[G. M. Alf]

On 15 Sep 2003 18:20:22 -0700, (stewart) wrote:

>Dude - have you ever considered running a fricken' wired intercom
>between the baby's and your room... I remember when houses used to
>come wired with Intercoms... ah, those were the days.
>
>- Stewart
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

How about voice over internet?

Mike

[G. M. Alf]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:10:17 -0400, "Daniel Martin"
> wrote:

>Crap! I Have to agree with Stewart re the wired intercom. CRAP CRAP CRAP!
>Actually personbally I don't like the idea of subjecting infants to R.F.
>even in small doses.... Where did I put my tinfoil hat?
>
>Dan

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Mike

[Phil Stripling]

G. M. Alf > writes:

>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

and if it's too late for an afdb, try
http://www.noah.org/trepan/trepan_clinic/trepan_clinic_why.html
Why worry about your diet, exercise, carcinogens, murder, and war,
when the real cause of misery and death is worrying about these
things? And the real cause of worry is your brain. Yet, how can
you not worry? The answer is to attack the problem and not the
symptoms. The problem is your brain.
This site tells you how to attack your brain. :->
Remember, only your brain stands in your way of your happiness.

--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.