Following the continued oppression of China's totalitarian government towards Hong Kong the chatter is increasing that the UK will pull out of the 5G Huawei project.
How likely do you think that is?
Do you think that would be the right decision?
Who would be the likely replacement?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
no commentOriginally Posted by Galant
Yes, yes and personally, I don't much care.
That is, yes, I think it's likely and getting likelier by the day.
And yes, I think it would be right. It's not just about Hong Kong either. How come it takes HK to get our attention when the treatment of Uighur Muslims seems to have skipped past as a TV news afterthought? Okay, we (UK) had a direct and recent involvement with HK and the Uighurs are arguably an "internal" matter. An argument could be made that it's none of our business and there's certainly nothing direct we can do about it. But by that logic, we shouldn't have done anything about Ruandan genocide, or the excesses in the former Yugoslavia either. We ought to just shrug, point out it's someone else's "internal affairs" and refrain from even expressing an opinion.
But therein lies a dilemma. When is "interfering" humanitarian rescue, and when is it post-Colonialist "thinking we're the world's policeman"?
Take UK/French "interference" in Libya. Recently, we've been blamed for pushing Libya into internecine conflict with all the negative results, gnoring the fact that the "interference" consisted of air attacks on Ghadaffi's forces on the way to Benghazi with his self-avowed intent of exterminating it.
We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. The lesson of Iraq, for instance, is akin you "you broke it, you brought it". But the logic of that is to never "interfere" at all. Like, say, not "interfering" with Hitler's persecution of Jews, gays, ...well, essentially anybody and everybody that didn't fit the Nazi ideal of racial purity.
I know this has wandered, somewhat, from Hong Kong and China, and 5G but, really, it hasn't.
Had we (UK) ignored Hitler while he was biting off chunk after chunk of Europe, it'd be far too late when he came knocking on our door. And in case anyone thinks I'm suggesting we (UK) alone stopped Hitler, no, we were FAR from alone and couldn't (IMHO) have succeeded alone.
My point is that, with respect to China, there are things we cannot do (like military action) even if we wanted to (and it would be monumentally stupid) but nor should we shrug and say "not our problem".
We should take a stand, and in my view, preventing any further Chinese involvement in UK critical infrastructure is a damn good place to start, be it 5G or nuclear power stations, etc. If we "can't afford" power stations without Chinese money, don't spent vast sums on "bullet trains" and put it into power generation and security.
At the same time, we need to wean ourselves of dirt cheap fashion made by Chinese firms and either pick less obnoxious regmes to trade with, or better yet bring manufacturing back her and be prepared to pay significantly more for clothes .... etc.
So yes, it's the right decision (IMHO).
As for who to use if not Huawei, I don't know enough about 5G to say. Cisco, maybe? Nokia? BT seems to be favouring Eriksson.
Sure, it'll slow 5G implementation and cost more, but at least we won't have to hold our noses while dealing the the Chinese regime. (Note, the regime, not the people).
For me, it's the same sort of argument as buying a cheap TV in a pub knowing some sleasebag burgled someone for it, or either paying more or doing without. I have no interest in buying stuff from scumbag burglars. I can't do much about China, personally. Hell, the UK as a whole can't. But I did buy Samsung not Huawei, at least in part for reasons of principle (and partly, practicality, if I'm honest) and I do avoid cheap clothes, going for quality. Besides .... they last more than 5 minutes.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
None of this sabre rattling about Huawei has anything to do with human rights or national security - people are just again getting fed the same line again and again. If it was truely about human rights,then no production would have been shifted to China which has been a non-democractic state for 75 years,and always had no real human rights. Nobody in our governments actually care about human rights,as we have supported tons of terrible regimes in the past....it's only because it's politically convenient for our purposes now.
People have to understand production was shifted to China as it was cheap,and it was not done for Chinese benefit but the benefit of our greedy companies and governments to make more money by pumping up their shares...lots of stuff could be made here or in other countries,but when you have pesky things like having to actually have workers rights or environmental protections,best to export the jobs to places who care less. Even other 2nd world and 3rd world countries lost jobs to China,as they cost more,and they cost more as they had pesky things liked workers rights and environmental rights. China was quite happy to sacrifice a percentage of its own population to get access to more money and more technology. We ended up helping them build a giant modern industrial capability from scratch,signed agreements with them to lower costs,etc and they have been able to understand how to make many things.
China knew what the end game was,we were more pre-occupied with share prices!
Sound familar....this happened to a lesser degree with Japan,South Korea and Taiwan,who were subcontracted to make many things for us too. If anyone just looked at Japan,South Korea and Taiwan,it started the same until they also innovated and many of our companies went bankrupt.
If it was about national security,again another buzzword. Companies such as ZTE and Huawei only have some exposure in the US market,mostly in masts in rural areas. However,their phone market share in the US is tiny,ie,so the ban on allowing their phone arm to use US technology,etc actually hurts the 3rd world more,ie,this is where they sell most of their phones and some European markets.
Huawei has moved from nowhere to selling the second highest number of smartphones worldwide...again why is this?? The same as many other Chinese companies who have risen up massively such as BBK Electronics(Realme, Oppo,Vivo,OnePlus and iQOO) and Xiaomi. Samsung and Apple just went for overpriced £1000 smartphones and forgot most of the 2nd and 3rd world,so nearly priced themselves out of the market,so now are panicking.
The Android ban actually helps companies such as Apple,because Huawei was starting to actually make decent inroads into premium phone market,especially in Europe. That is potentially a big loss of revenue for companies such as Apple.
Funny,how Apple gets a free pass,despite making most of its stuff in China,and despite a promise to make stuff in the US,it's more a way to dodge certain things:
https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/20/...-apple-factory
In the UK GCHQ actually has a joint security centre with Huawei which examines all the technology they can sell here,so it has to pass all the checks first.
The real reason,is because Huawei actually spends a much bigger part of its R and D on actual cellular technologies,and US companies when it came to 5G cut R and D,as it cost them profits.
So US patents as a percentage of essential 5G patents are behind their share in 4G.
Huawei spends more on R and D than Apple who makes far more money. They actually have been on of the top 3 companies for patent awards in Europe,frequently being the top company:
https://www.epo.org/news-events/pres.../20200312.html
That means even if you ban them,you would need to license their patents:
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/h...035311186.html
South Korea,Europe and China are significantly ahead in essential patents in new cellular technologies unlike the US. The quick buck mentality has come back to roost.
Also,people have forgotten we had a similar position in the 1980s.....with Japan:
https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/that...amm-1775418875
There was a huge trade war between Japan and the US in the 1980s. Japanese car companies and electronics companies simply made better stuff,and it lead to a similar war of words,and even Japanese products being smashed to pieces. The same sentiment being expressed....even accusations of Japan supporting the Soviets!
This all eventually ended up with the following agreements being hoisted on many countries(Japan,UK):Don’t think Republicans can be punk rock? Well, in 1987, they staged one of the most punk rock protests that Capitol Hill has ever seen. They smashed a boombox to pieces with some sledgehammers. The part that was slightly less punk rock? They smashed it because they were mad at Toshiba for making electronics sold in the Soviet Union.
Just as US politicians today are concerned about America’s trade deficit with China, people of the 1980s were concerned about the trade deficit with Japan. In 1981 the American trade deficit with Japan was roughly $10 billion. By 1985 the deficit had ballooned to about $50 billion.
As M.J. Heale explains in the fascinating 2009 paper “Anatomy of a Scare: Yellow Peril Politics in America, 1980-1993,” this deficit had an enormous influence on American politics. Politicians of both parties used the rise of Japanese cars and electronics as a wedge issue, depending on who was in power at the time. When Ronald Reagan was president, Democrats sought to exploit the loss of manufacturing jobs to Japan by appealing to a constituency they’d lost in the 1980 election: white, blue collar Democrats.
Heale notes that “Japan-bashing” was resonating with a wide swath of the American public in the 1980s—from automakers in Detroit to the electronics manufacturers of Silicon Valley. American manufacturing was on the decline, and politicians could point to Japan as the leading culprit.
Even Democratic standard-bearer Walter Mondale used language about the Japanese that would sound right at home in the lips of Donald Trump today:
We have to stop showing that white flag, to start running up the American flag, and to turn around, fight and make American number one again in international commerce so that American jobs are filled in this country. If we don’t get cracking, get serious, and get leadership... our kids will be cheated by us. Their jobs will consist of sweeping up around Japanese computers and spending a lifetime serving McDonald’s hamburgers.
Mondale’s 1984 vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro used identical language to rile up the anger of the voting base proclaiming that, “we fight to get our oranges, our meat, and our baseball bats into Japan, while their cars, their cameras, and their stereos flow into our homes.”
So what does this have to do with sledgehammers on Capitol Hill? Many politicians used the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union as a way to back protectionist trade measures. Toshiba happened to be selling equipment to the Soviet Union which was reportedly being used on Russian submarines. And after the Democrats had ridden a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment to snag crucial congressional seats in 1986, it was the Republicans’ turn to be outraged.
The photos may seem a bit silly today, but it was a popular photo-op. Representative Don Ritter of Pennsylvania, Representative Helen Bentley of Maryland and Representative Elton Gallegly of California all took turns bashing a Toshiba boombox with sledgehammers. As Heale notes, footage of the press conference would be broadcast on Japanese TV for years to come.
Open embed.gettyimages.com
The politicians were joined by a group called the American Conservative Union, which awarded Toshiba a “Golden Rope Award.” The noose was in reference to Lenin’s proclamation that capitalists are so greedy that they’d sell anyone the rope with which to hang themselves.
Japan became a tremendously useful punching bag for American politicians throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. And, of course, the bashing acquired plenty of racist overtones in some circles—both Republican and Democrat alike. But by the early 1990s Japan’s economy started to collapse. America’s economy rebounded in the 1990s and saw tremendous growth under the Clinton years.
With Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party’s race to the White House, trumpeting the growing trade deficit with China we can expect to hear plenty more about how America doesn’t win anymore. But this is really nothing new, and takes a page from the history books of both Democrats and Republicans.
The only thing we need now is for Trump to wield a sledgehammer against a $5 Chinese-made toaster. And if he does you can bet it’s going to be the best, biggest, most glorious sledgehammer ever made. The only question will be whether he can find a sledgehammer made in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord
It caused the depreciation of the USD which meant exports from many countries like Japan,UK,etc got much more expensive and contributed to the Japanese recession of the 1990s.
So this is all due to the quick buck mentality,I have talked about for years on here. Our companies are more concerned about playing the stock market,so repeatedly they think "poorer" countries are stupid and won't take advantage when we dump advanced industries abroad for their benefit. I saw what China would do nearly 20 years ago,as it's the same template as Japan,South Korea and Taiwan did. The big difference is those are democracies,and much smaller countries.
Also,I can see after we have "dealt" with China,the next country which will have this problem will be India in a few decades,once they become a more developed economy. India wants to indigenise more and more technology like China is and both those countries make up nearly 40% of the world's population.
This mentality of short termism based on stock prices,is destroying our competitive advantage in the world.
We have cut R and D,pushed so many jobs abroad(which could be done here),etc - the rest of the world still operates on certain nationalist lines when it comes to developing technologies. They are fighting a longterm battle and we are fighting a short term battle to make a quick buck.
If we don't change this outlook,I fear in the next couple of decades,we will start to lose our technological edge.
There is simply not enough money being put into R and D in Europe and the US,and more money needs to be put into engineering and sciences in our universities. The funding is terrible.
Edit!!
This is what former Google chairman,Eric Smidt said:
https://www.computing.co.uk/news/401...o-eric-schmidt
However, the main threat posed to the US is its role as technological leader, he went on, saying that like many others he had underestimated the country's capabilities in the past, considering the Chinese to be simply "very good at copying".
"The Chinese are just as good, and maybe better, in key areas of research and innovation as the West," Schmidt said. "They're putting more money into it. They are putting it in a different way, it is state-directed in a way that is different from the West. We need to get our act together to compete."
Rather than turning inwards and seeking to ban Huawei, as the US and the UK are moving to do, Schmidt suggested western countries invest more in research and development, foster greater collaboration between private sector, the state and academia and look to attract the top talent from around the world, including China.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 02-07-2020 at 12:23 PM.
ik9000 (02-07-2020),jimborae (02-07-2020),kompukare (02-07-2020),Nelly. (16-07-2020),neonplanet40 (21-07-2020)
@Saracen, sorry to pick you up on this but sadly we didn't do anything about the Rwandan genocide. We let the US sit on their hands and weasel their way out of calling it a genocide to avoid having to act. We let the French actively assist the corrupt Rwandan regime at the time massacre its own citizens, all for reasons of French pride and a desire to "maintain influence" in the region. It sickens me. The Rwandan exiles solved the problem by coming in from Uganda and sorting stuff out.
Some excellent books exist, but none better than "We regret to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" is a very good one to start with. As are the films Hotel Rwanda and Shooting Dogs. Hotel Rwanda even has the footage of the UN session where the US refers to "acts of genocide" but then goes on to argue this is not the same thing as genocide itself so we're not doing anything. Clinton was president then. This changed my opinion of him completely.
Saracen999 (02-07-2020)
Quite right. That'll teach me to rush a post like that. What I was actually thinking off was Blair's intervention in Sierra Leone to help stop the civil war.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Funny you mention Clinton @ik9000, it was his government who made the move, along with others, to drop the restrictions on trade with China and open up the markets with the supposed aim that mutual interaction would be an important part of helping bring China into a freer and more democratic world. I'm glad that the influx of money into China helped to bring millions out of poverty there, but it certainly didn't seem to do a thing about moving the government to a more free position. If anything, it is western governments who have been more moved due to the sheer size of the Chinese market. Money talks. In addition, how much pollution are China pumping into the planet, and how much influence are they buying up around the world, particularly in Africa?
With the Chinese government being what it is the free world, east and west, should be working in such a way as to out-compete China and force them to start to play ball instead of capitulating left, right and centre. That's my two pence any way.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
And the USA have essentially banned Huawei and ZTE!
https://news.sky.com/story/huaweu-an...-says-12018625
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
It's really quite a sad state of affairs with a lot of rhetoric and not many facts.
You see so many people going on about how Huawei are "stealing secrets from USA on 5G!!!1"
Only, the truth of the matter is that, of the three *major* players in the 5G network space, none of them are US-based companies. Step back to what I believe are the top 7, still no USA. Speaking about network technology (not phones or patents), Huawei are the largest. Then you have Ericsson and Nokia (not sure what order). Then there's a significant step before you get to ZTE and Samsung. Other notable players are NEC and Fujitsu. There are many other and often lesser-known players e.g. in the RF market, the likes of Kathrein, Amphenol, Commscope and a few more. Guess who's the largest here though? You guessed it! Huawei.
I see Cisco mentioned occasionally, and while a large networking provider, to my knowledge they're not really present in the 5G space. Like, yeah they might provide equipment like Ethernet switches and optics for backhaul, but not equipment specifically needed for 5G.
A major and oft-overlooked problem with just banning Huawei, is not only do you have higher market prices, you have now reduced the market to effectively a duopoly. Would it not have been prudent to cause all this havoc before operators had invested billions in equipment and the market had already established its main players?
If the Government had genuine concerns about the security of Huawei technology (something we just have to take their word on since, to my knowledge, there's still no public proof) - then the existing plan of banning from the packet core and limiting involvement in the edge made some sense. Even the active parts of the edge have very limited scope for malicious activity. However, extending an outright ban to things like low-level actives or even passives is frankly idiotic, things like RF amplifiers and antennas.
Yet other outlets seem to be mentioning things like Huawei optical headend equipment and even the likes of VDSL street cabinets. I suspect they're just conflating them with '5G' since not many people reporting on this stuff seem to know what 5G actually means, but a demand to rip out existing equipment such as that would be just ridiculous, not to mention eye-wateringly expensive and labour-intensive at a time when the money and effort would be better spent on continuing the FTTP rollout the government keeps promising. Not to mention grossly unfair (and I wonder if challengeable in court) on the ISPs whose income depends on such equipment that was perfectly legal when they made their capex decisions.
Edit: It's worth mentioning the impact of the US trade war bans on equipment availability. This does undoubtedly raise questions about continued availability and support of Huawei equipment into the future and is something ISPs should be considering carefully. Whether it needs to be legislated against based on that though, is quite another question.
Edit 2: Just another thing worth noting - Huawei was on a worrying trajectory to becoming a behemoth and pushing competitors out of the market. So, it's not necessarily a bad thing to limit involvement and protect competition with sensible legislation. Again, not the same thing as knee-jerk blanket bans based on politics though.
Last edited by watercooled; 02-07-2020 at 07:08 PM.
Whereas an opportunistic USA will clearly be a factor I'm not convinced by arguments that say security concerns are all invented. Anything connected with the Chinese government is a risk. I think we're so used to living in a comfortable and free western society that we've forgotten that totalitarianism can exist and does exist. The Chinese government isn't some hard-done-by competitor suffering a propaganda war. They're an aggressive, controlling, totalitarian, communist state. That's not nothing. Allowing them to mass more and more wealth and power really isn't a good idea. The experiment to get them to come onside by playing nicely with them economically has failed. Competing against them aggressively might be the only way forward.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Just to be clear I'm not suggesting the security concerns are all invented. They are plausible, sure, but we're still taking the word of a third party on that rather than having proof. In the context of discussion, I think it's important to separate evidence from speculation, but I'm also perfectly aware that I do not have access to everything regarding this matter. On the other hand we do have proof of NSA-installed backdoors in US-made equipment. Do we think that the type of researchers who found such backdoors are not also scrutinising Huawei equipment? The HCSEC was even established precisely to look for this sort of thing, with their reports made public. Unless I've missed something recently, the vibe I'm getting seems to be more that politicians have a 'gut feeling' about it rather than seeing hard evidence. If hard evidence of malicious code existed, I'm confident that prompt measures would have been taken against Huawei rather than allowing their continued involvement until the trade war made that stance untenable, arguably for long-term feasibility worries rather than direct security implications.
Now, we must also make a clear distinction between real security concerns of the hardware, and the issue of buying it from the company in question. For instance, do you consider copper cables made in China to be a security risk? Because that's the same sort of logic when we're talking about analogue or passive components in an RF system for example. It's one thing to say that purchasing from that source is an indirect security risk, but that's quite distinct from implying that an RF power amplifier or antenna could be a network security risk.
This isn't such a simplistic debate as some places are making out, and the rhetoric, half-truths and outright nonsense posted in the guise of journalism is frustrating to say the least. As I said earlier, there are reasons besides 'national security' why Huawei may be a threat, but it seems a bit condescending to be told that's the only reason, when it's categorically not a reason for some of their hardware.
This debate really isn't about 'taking sides'.
The way I understand it is that the security debate isn't simply about possible weaknesses in the devices or items themselves, but also the company and it's relationship. That is, there may not be a specific visible issue in any device at present but the relationship of Huawei with the Chinese government is such that they cannot be trusted in general. The pressure that can be put on them by China to act as a leak etc. means that any relationship is a risk, assuming that the higher ups in Huawei or ZTE etc. wouldn't be willing participants in such actions (and I'm not alleging that they do, just considering the possibility). In isolation that might seem unjust, treating a private company like that just because they're from China, but the dynamic described about the Chinese governments relationship with the 'private' businesses in China is known reality. In the eyes of the Chinese government there are no private Chinese businesses, and they'll lean on anyone to do anything if they think it's in their interest and no one and no company have the rights to object.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Oh I'm not ignoring that concern and I believe it is a valid one, it's just the technicalities of the argument that irk me. That's what I mean about not taking sides - I acknowledge there are concerns, and indeed I think it's a big positive that we have more than one vendor supplying a majority of equipment throughout the country's telecoms networks, regardless of who that vendor is. As I think I said earlier in the thread, Huawei's market share trajectory in some segments was becoming concerning. But on the flip side, an outright ban completely removes one competitor in what is already a fairly consolidated market. That, and the other concerns I've raised about nonsensical knee-jerk reactions about existing and/or non-vulnerable equipment, and the ridiculous way it's been handled, costing operators a lot of money and causing delays because of the uncertainty and backtracking. I'm no legal expert but I do wonder if there's scope for ISPs to sue the Government for the losses caused by their indecisiveness?
It does present opportunity for some of the smaller players I mentioned earlier to step up, and there seem to be some rumours that the Government are also in discussions along those lines. But it's not realistic to expect them to become outright replacements for Huawei overnight, and much of the equipment is needed right now for the major rollouts. Vodafone have just today announced their SA 5G deployment.
I would be very wary of just pointing finger at one country,regarding any potential government collusion,especially after we saw what happened with Crypto AG:
https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/what...eas-espionage/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/swiss-...pying-scandal/
The fact is the CIA and German BND basically infiltrated a Swiss(!) company which made encryption equipment for many friendly companies and spied on allies,and countries wanted to use Swiss equipment as they trusted their neutrality.As watercooled indicated,the NSA basically infiltrated Cisco equipment,and with the whole Tempura and Prism thing,we also don't know to the extent,what our companies are reporting back to intelligence agencies either. That is on top of all the commercial spying companies such as Google,Facebook,etc do too.
So yes the potential for Huawei to be a risk is there going by that,but I think we might be not aware of how many things have already happened. But then I go back to the reasons WHY Huawei got to where it is,ie,the quick buck short term mentality our companies and governments have,which holds back our own innovations,and makes other countries who care less about these things catch up or exceed us in a number of ways. This is the reason we need Chinese help for our nuclear power plants...they are using a French design. France had the foresight to put money into nuclear power and things such as indigenous space launch capabilities. We just as usual cancelled all programmes,and paid more money to foreign companies. That is decades of lack of investment in indigenising stuff in the UK for you. This is probably why we are so dependent on foreign companies for lots of things now. Yet we have some of the best scientists and engineers in the world,who end up working for other countries.
This hubris is not going to help us longterm. We need to be doing things because we CAN,not just because some investment firms tell us it's OK to do so. With Japan,South Korea and Taiwan they have repeated got it wrong.
Also in the end with the amount of information some of these large tech firms have on you,it would be probably easier for foreign governments to use those companies to mine data. These companies are beholden to their shareholders or their owner's whims. Companies such as Cambridge Analytica had links to large data mining companies such as Palantir Technologies,who also who has access to our NHS data and even intelligence data from our government. People might have though the concept of mega-corporations such as OCP or Weylan-Yutani in science fiction was a trope,but it is a real thing now,since they have their fingers in so many pies.
Such companies also have similar access in other countries - has no one asked who watches the watchers with these companies?? They work across national boundaries. What if they get infiltrated by other governments or basically sell their data to the highest bidder??
Yet our governments worry about Huawei,etc but ALSO don't worry about physically giving access to some of our most important data to these multi-national private companies. Very few of which highlight that our private data has been massively compromised for years,and is probably up for sale to the highest bidder already. Plus what about the security implications of how this data is stored and where??
Yet the rate at which our governments are using these private companies to handle our most private data is actually increasing. I am actually more concerned at this,because we are just handing stuff over to these companies,ie,no hacking or infiltration needed!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 03-07-2020 at 01:06 PM.
Cat - I agree, and the discrepancy is concerning, but all the risks elsewhere don't negate the reality of risks inherent in dealing with China.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Well, they did it. The idiotsNot content with spending billions we don't have on Brexit, they now want to spend further billions we don't have to massively delay and disrupt the UKs 5G rollout, all over posturing for a better trade deal with the US.
Absolutely scandalous. I dont know how to express how stupid this is in a polite way, so i'll leave that your imagination and get on with drafting a rather pointless letter to my MP about this huge waste of money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
