RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Announcements and News > Community Announcements and News


Community Announcements and News - Announcements and News of interest to the entire RadioReference/Broadcastify Community. All new threads posted here will be moderated by the administrators. *** Please post regional and manufacturer specific news in the appropriate regional or manufacturer forum. Thanks. ***

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 04-15-2017, 4:21 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ten13 View Post
(a) Motorola will make a BIG come back, and their stock prices will rise, as they convince unknowing police and fire chiefs that they MUST HAVE all these changes IMMEDIATELY (otherwise Kenwood will make them a better offer), and the chiefs' two-year old radio system that they just spent $xx million on "must" be replaced;

(
It is pretty obvious that you don't like Motorola. However your comment above makes you look like a fool. I had a brief look at the PDF in question, and nowhere did I see anything about involving a manufacture.

Can you provide to us what part of that PDF backs up your statement about Motorola FORCING users to buy all new equipment ?

I fail to see a plan that is published that discusses having a common frequency, tone and channel naming plan somehow will FORCE folks buy all new radios. Can you elaborate on this ?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 04-15-2017, 5:35 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ten13
Posts: 144
Default

"Can you provide to us what part of that PDF backs up your statement about Motorola FORCING users to buy all new equipment ?"

Be in the room when Mot makes their sales pitch (as I have) and listen to what they say.

It was only until afterwards when "cooler head prevailed" that the agency's bosses realized that their speech of "necessity" was ONLY a sales pitch, and told Mot, "We'll get back to you...."
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 04-15-2017, 7:02 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 7,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R8000 View Post
It is pretty obvious that you don't like Motorola. However your comment above makes you look like a fool. I had a brief look at the PDF in question, and nowhere did I see anything about involving a manufacture.
If you've been in the industry for a while, you'll see how Motorola Sales does business.
All opportunities are utilized to sell new radios, even when there isn't an issue with existing equipment.
-Many reports of small radio shops, including Motorola authorized shops, telling customers back in 2012 and earlier that all new digital radios were required to meet the FCC mandated narrowbanding. This was around the time that MotoTrbo came out, and there was a big push to sell new systems. Didn't matter if they needed new radios or not.
-When it was time to reband my 800MHz SmartNet system, we had a big meeting with Motorola to plan it out. There were 3 technical people from Motorola in the room, and no less than 5 sales people. 20 minutes of the meeting was discussing the work of physically rebanding the equipment. The remaining time (until I cut them off) was them trying to sell us an entirely new P25 800MHz system. Waste of my time and would have been a huge waste of taxpayers dollars.

Liking Motorola or not, that doesn't have anything to do with it. Motorola makes mostly good equipment. The issue with Motorola is their sales tactics, which many of us have been directly exposed to. Motorola sales is infamous for shady dealings.

His concern echoes mine, In what way will sleazy sales people (Motorola included) utilize this mandate to sell more radios?
Yes, we all understand that nothing in the document requires new radio equipment, that's beside the point. The issue is when city/county/state/agency coffers are packed full of an endless supply of taxpayers dollars, some sales people will do anything, and I do mean anything, to get their grubby little paws on it.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:00 AM
DJ11DLN's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mudhole, IN
Posts: 1,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmckenna View Post
If you've been in the industry for a while, you'll see how Motorola Sales does business.
All opportunities are utilized to sell new radios, even when there isn't an issue with existing equipment.
-Many reports of small radio shops, including Motorola authorized shops, telling customers back in 2012 and earlier that all new digital radios were required to meet the FCC mandated narrowbanding. This was around the time that MotoTrbo came out, and there was a big push to sell new systems. Didn't matter if they needed new radios or not.
-When it was time to reband my 800MHz SmartNet system, we had a big meeting with Motorola to plan it out. There were 3 technical people from Motorola in the room, and no less than 5 sales people. 20 minutes of the meeting was discussing the work of physically rebanding the equipment. The remaining time (until I cut them off) was them trying to sell us an entirely new P25 800MHz system. Waste of my time and would have been a huge waste of taxpayers dollars.

Liking Motorola or not, that doesn't have anything to do with it. Motorola makes mostly good equipment. The issue with Motorola is their sales tactics, which many of us have been directly exposed to. Motorola sales is infamous for shady dealings.

His concern echoes mine, In what way will sleazy sales people (Motorola included) utilize this mandate to sell more radios?
Yes, we all understand that nothing in the document requires new radio equipment, that's beside the point. The issue is when city/county/state/agency coffers are packed full of an endless supply of taxpayers dollars, some sales people will do anything, and I do mean anything, to get their grubby little paws on it.
Back 10 years ago or so, they (/\/\ sales) actually tried to tell us that VHF-Hi in its entirety was being handed over to Civil Avaition, so of course we needed to buy their hyper-expensive radios, lest we be left in the lurch...but, there being at the time no pager solutions able to work with digital trunked radio, that we'd still have our VHF frequencies for paging...ONLY. When I called them on this nonsense, the only way to describe what transpired would be...chaos.
__________________
If it looks stupid but it works...it ain't stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:07 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ten13 View Post
"Can you provide to us what part of that PDF backs up your statement about Motorola FORCING users to buy all new equipment ?"

Be in the room when Mot makes their sales pitch (as I have) and listen to what they say.

It was only until afterwards when "cooler head prevailed" that the agency's bosses realized that their speech of "necessity" was ONLY a sales pitch, and told Mot, "We'll get back to you...."
Ahh...so then there is no part of the OP's PDF that says anything about Motorola forcing anybody to buy their radios.

Just an attempt to derail the thread is all.

Let's keep the topic centered around the interop PDF that was provided.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:23 AM
RFI-EMI-GUY's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,625
Default

mmmmmmmmm
__________________
"Have Spectrum Analyzer, - Will travel" "Going Green" ø

Last edited by RFI-EMI-GUY; 04-16-2017 at 1:02 AM.. Reason: Self: Remaining on topic!
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:20 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central IL
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcr_inc View Post
A law enforcement officer shots his gun in the line of duty an average 2 times in his career but uses his radio everyday multiple times. He must qualify to use his gun every year, be able to tear it down and reassemble it in a specified amount of time but only gets on the average, 1 hour of training on the tool he uses everyday.
Better, recurrent training is what is needed to make interop work, not more frequencies that officer don't know how to get to..
You nailed it! I have recommended the same thing, doing a presentation to Chiefs and than each department. I get laughed at...

We are in a 3 county area that uses UHF Analog for most of the larger cities/villages in one county, but yet the county sheriff and then smaller towns (500 to 2K in pop) use an 800 EDACS system, then add in the main city in our region is using 800 P25 (Phase 1) while ISP and some others are on 700/800 P25 (Phase 2 very soon-Starcom21), while my county is UHF with 4-5 poor man voters (select tower that will receive the radio and even then it won't receive) and with the mess, all fire departments are still on VHF-HI.

EMA in our area has a Certified COML person, but yet no one has educated, or worked on a solid frequency plan for the 3 counties that work together on an almost daily basis. Sure they have ISPERN and IREACH, but most of the cars never have the radio on or listening, there is/was a UHF analog repeater in one county that covers all 3 counties, all the local cities in the county use UHF, the county on EDACS has the UHF channels in their cars but yet to create a mutual aid channel is beyond all of them. I have spent the better part of a year talking to the site owner (county sheriff) and EMA in that county and while I get things move low, it seems to be at a stand still, add in the EMA wants the freq for themselves, they are parting from IFOG and APCO and want DMR and not P25 to create a simulcast system, while they have a viable HI-Band on analog (though it has P25 but not programmed) that just needs a better strategit site placement.

Until someone decides to go with the standards in place, and leaves their druthers (much of the EMA steering is Ham related) I don't see anyone getting their poo together.

Add in the local radio shops all want to sell their flavor of digital instead of a standard and the shops seem to refuse to work with each other, again a mess that is really a shame and borders on a crime. A local PD needed backup on an armed robbery arrest, calling alternate agency got them a 15 minute on hold at dispatch, and ended up using his CAD to find someone.

Even the EMA team in my county has no band plan, wants all the EMA members to get a Ham ticket and use that instead of the sanctioned freq set aside.

I fully back DHS/IFOG on trying to standardize things. While I am sure I will get flamed, it seems even those posting here don't find a value in the standards trying to be set.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 12:27 PM
milf's Avatar
Careful, I CAN hear you!
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 11,309
Default

Is not using amateur radio for official use illegal? Sigh. Folks just wont get it. Anyways


Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
__________________
Admin for AR, IN, LA, MS, and TN
PRO-92, PRO-92B, PRO-96 x 2, BCD396XT, BCD436HP+DMR
HT-1250 LS+, APX6000XE
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 3:02 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 7,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ11DLN View Post
Back 10 years ago or so, they (/\/\ sales) actually tried to tell us that VHF-Hi in its entirety was being handed over to Civil Avaition, so of course we needed to buy their hyper-expensive radios, lest we be left in the lurch...but, there being at the time no pager solutions able to work with digital trunked radio, that we'd still have our VHF frequencies for paging...ONLY. When I called them on this nonsense, the only way to describe what transpired would be...chaos.
Yeah, I've had people try and tell me that, too. That we -must- go to 700MHz P25 phase 2 full trunking system.

No.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 3:05 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 7,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussierescueil View Post
I fully back DHS/IFOG on trying to standardize things. While I am sure I will get flamed, it seems even those posting here don't find a value in the standards trying to be set.
I've programmed -all- of our public safety radios with the appropriate interoperability channels.

I've explained what they are for time and time again. Getting officers to turn the knob on the radio is impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 04-16-2017, 8:37 PM
MCore25's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lone Star Republic
Posts: 2,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmckenna View Post
Yeah, I've had people try and tell me that, too. That we -must- go to 700MHz P25 phase 2 full trunking system.



No.


The local (Motorola) system has more VHF sites on it than 800 MHz but was originally built out as 800 MHz. Mother M is quoting like crazy to get the VHF side Phase 2 capable since majority of those sites are only 5 channels sites (versus 15 to 28 channel sites on 800 MHz).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If a repeater IDs and no one is on frequency to hear it, does it even make a sound? Yes, because KC5MVZ is monitoring you…
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:32 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pittsboro in / san diego ca
Posts: 269
Default

A friend of mine is on a SAR team in San Bernardino CA, when he's coordinating landing a helicopter he ends up using CALCORD most of the time because it's been around in CA for a long time and everyone can find it.
__________________
jay thompson / CETsr, GROL
COML, COMT trainee
KC9VTT / COML DMAT CA-4
milf CAN'T hear me, I've got private line
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:03 PM
iamhere300's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chappell Hill TX
Posts: 1,277
Default

I hate to drag up an old thread, but some relevance that I just experienced

Quote:
Originally Posted by ten13 View Post
"Ya know, there is life outside of the NYC area, and the need for common channel naming existed long before 9/11"

BUT...if the City of New York, with its thousands of emergency employees, dozens of agencies and sub-agencies of their own, plus state, bi-state, and Federal agencies, plus other major agencies from surrounding counties, working daily in the same geographical area, a place where some of the biggest incidents happen, sometimes more than once a day, doesn't use these so-called "interoperatability" channels, just how important are they to a place with a name of, say, East Cupcake, need them?
So, I have been working with an IMT team down here for Harvey in the Houston area as a COML. Dual team, folks from FDNY, and TFS. 3 COML, 1 from TFS, 2 from FDNY

They pulled out their radios, their daily carry radios as well as their cache. Immediately asked if we could use UTAC43. Then we added other UTAC into our com plan, as well as 7TAC channels. Lots of them. Pretty much all the UTAC, VTAC, 7TAC, 8TAC were up in use at one point or another in the greater Houston area, as well as mutual aid talkgroups, and quickly set up talkgroups on the TXWARN system.

In downtimes, they described a lot of use of the UTAC channels in NYC.

From prior personal experience, NYPD has interops also, and use them.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:41 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ten13
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamhere300 View Post
In downtimes, they described a lot of use of the UTAC channels in NYC.

From prior personal experience, NYPD has interops also, and use them.


What do they mean by "downtime"? If they mean while operating at a "routine" incident of some magnitude, they'd find it VERY hard to prove that, both the FD and the PD.

If they mean, anytime there's NOTHING going on like, say, while one guy is in the store getting the meal and he has a question for those sitting outside on the rig.....maybe.

And maybe for TF-specific drills, but NEVER for real operational usage.

The worse thing you should do, in the middle of a major operation in a city as large as NYC is to make an announcement, "All units....switch to channel.....". It will be at that moment that the entire operation goes into complete pandemonium and loss of control.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 1:08 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans region
Posts: 2,430
Default

This thread has wondered around a number of different points. One of them that I would like to comment on is the major lack of radio training by users. LE gets fire arms training mandated to them. Throw in a first aid course or two. But show me one department that has any mandated radio training or even gives their people in the field a sheet with the different channels that are in their radios.

As for the Motorola sales force tag teams, they are the best around. Doesn't matter what was on the bid specs or why they are there at a meeting, if you slow down for a second, they will jump in and spread their fertilizer to sell all they can.

But getting back to the main topic of this thread, there has been a number of attempts to consolidate names so they mean something and the same names are used for the same channels all around the country. There is nothing more of a pain in the lower back side than a channel name for the same frequency that is different in every radio depending on what agency you work for. Makes for easy emergency communications at any major incident if they are the same. But this is not what you find.

The after action feedback from hurricane Harvey and Irma will be interesting. My bet is on the fact that we still don't have common names on the radio display for the same frequencies. My next bet is many of the radio users or operators probably don't even know they have the "National Interoperability" channels in their radios.

We need to find a way to push radio training and start resolving this long standing problem.
__________________
Jim
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 1:19 PM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Taxachusetts
Posts: 9,220
Default

Not an LE Agency, but Boston Fire +++++
BFD Communications
http://www.bfdradio.net/BFD%20Zones.pdf
http://www.bfdradio.net/BFD%20Channel%20Plan.pdf

And they regularly use then, when on Mutual Aid to the neighboring cities/towns.
Besides the cheat sheet, the Dispatcher will advise the Zone and the Channel #

They also regularly incorporate the NIFOG Channels into the IAP for major events

For LE, I have seen some cheat-sheets from a few DHS Agencies as well as our State Police here in the Commonwealth

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post
This thread has wondered around a number of different points. One of them that I would like to comment on is the major lack of radio training by users. LE gets fire arms training mandated to them. Throw in a first aid course or two. But show me one department that has any mandated radio training or even gives their people in the field a sheet with the different channels that are in their radios.

As for the Motorola sales force tag teams, they are the best around. Doesn't matter what was on the bid specs or why they are there at a meeting, if you slow down for a second, they will jump in and spread their fertilizer to sell all they can.

But getting back to the main topic of this thread, there has been a number of attempts to consolidate names so they mean something and the same names are used for the same channels all around the country. There is nothing more of a pain in the lower back side than a channel name for the same frequency that is different in every radio depending on what agency you work for. Makes for easy emergency communications at any major incident if they are the same. But this is not what you find.

The after action feedback from hurricane Harvey and Irma will be interesting. My bet is on the fact that we still don't have common names on the radio display for the same frequencies. My next bet is many of the radio users or operators probably don't even know they have the "National Interoperability" channels in their radios.

We need to find a way to push radio training and start resolving this long standing problem.
__________________
Bill N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 1:35 PM
iamhere300's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chappell Hill TX
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ten13 View Post
What do they mean by "downtime"? If they mean while operating at a "routine" incident of some magnitude, they'd find it VERY hard to prove that, both the FD and the PD.

If they mean, anytime there's NOTHING going on like, say, while one guy is in the store getting the meal and he has a question for those sitting outside on the rig.....maybe.

And maybe for TF-specific drills, but NEVER for real operational usage.

The worse thing you should do, in the middle of a major operation in a city as large as NYC is to make an announcement, "All units....switch to channel.....". It will be at that moment that the entire operation goes into complete pandemonium and loss of control.
Wow. What part did you not follow? Oh, I know. In downtime. Downtime we discussed. A thinking person would realize that downtime is just that - time when we were ot actively involved in the pursuit of our mission, and we could discuss things. Like our dogs. Differences between NYC and Houston. How they use interop channels. We even had downtime so we could eat!

And we were using these interop channels, which were clearly identified in their radios, both the APX6000 and the APX7000 extensively. UTAC 43 and 42 were our main go-to channels. At their COML's request. Their main cache was trailered down, and got here a few days after we, with the help of a local shop, got UTAC43 and 42 repeaters on the air.

Hurricane Harvey IS an operational missions, not a drill. You may have heard about it. It was in a newspaper or two. Short blurb on TV.

Do they use them in NYC for operational use? Of course not. The point was, they do have them available for use, and yes, at least the teams that routinely go out of the area do know how to use them.

Read back and see where people were saying they were not in FDNY radios, that they never used them no matter where they are, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 1:40 PM
iamhere300's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chappell Hill TX
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post

But getting back to the main topic of this thread, there has been a number of attempts to consolidate names so they mean something and the same names are used for the same channels all around the country. There is nothing more of a pain in the lower back side than a channel name for the same frequency that is different in every radio depending on what agency you work for. Makes for easy emergency communications at any major incident if they are the same. But this is not what you find.

The after action feedback from hurricane Harvey and Irma will be interesting. My bet is on the fact that we still don't have common names on the radio display for the same frequencies. My next bet is many of the radio users or operators probably don't even know they have the "National Interoperability" channels in their radios.

We need to find a way to push radio training and start resolving this long standing problem.
Training is King. It also needs to be exercised. OK has a mandatory class during their academy for radio use. But if you teach it once, then never do followup training, they well forget everything. I had a trooper on the turnpike let me out of a ticket because I explained how to use some of the features and change channels on his radio.

Insofar as Harvey, the standard codeplug on the TXWARN system includes 7TACS and 8TACS, and they are labeled properly. Of course, people finding them is the issue. The FDNY radios were all properly programmed, as well as the Harris County cache radios.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 10:41 PM
jparks29's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 1,006
Default

Another issue..

Agency users tend to stick to channels they know/need. Not kidding when I've seen fire officers who haven't used more than 4 talkgroups/channels in the past 10 years.....and they still expect him to find one channel out of 50+ zones.....

People laugh when you tell them you have radios that are literally full... Cannot add any more talkgroups or conv channels...

Even more fun when you have zones like P, Q, and R set up for interop, and zone names go from A,B,C,D etc and skip F,G,H, L,M, etc...depending on the agency/user assignment, Ie an LEO zone A is different than fire Zone A.

I'd just as soon have a global codeplug/mission plan, and set up TG restrictions per user ID on the zone controller.. Ie LE on A, LE Tac on zone B, LE command on zone C, fire dispatch on zone D, fireground on E, fire command on F,, etc....

That way if it's said 'switch to Zone Q channel 3', everyone is on the same page...

I've seen agencies with different codeplugs for mobiles and portables, even whose portables were assigned to the same apparatus as the mobile...A fairly large east coast agency had different codeplugs for every different group you could imagine... 1 for beat cops, a different one for Sgt and Lt, another one for ERT, another for command. another for DEM, another for higher gov county officials, another for animal control, etc etc... The people managing the system were too used to to the old way of doing things... Thinking of the old system that was limited to 48 Conv. channels.... From what I hear they're doing a lot better, as this was many years ago, but it boggled my mind how many different codeplugs they had while screaming 'interoperability' at the top of their lungs...
__________________
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 10:57 PM
szron's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 388
Default

This doesn't change much.

And on the topic of interoperability. As it was said. Technology is there, it's been there. It's usually also in place. All it really takes for the gears to work together is some strategically placed knowledgeable people. You don't need to change the mindset of an entire agency, just a few. First line radio tech/admin who, couple dispatchers and field supervisors need to have a basic understanding how things work rest will fall in.

Same with working with other agencies, do not be afraid to walk them through what needs to be done. Sometimes that's all you need, a little nudge and suddenly everybody will say "wow this is convenient".
__________________
K7POL
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions