Searching \ for '[OT] Skype overhyped?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=skype+overhyped
Search entire site for: 'Skype overhyped?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Skype overhyped?'
2007\10\02@010343 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
www.news.com/eBay-What-to-do-with-Skype/2100-7352_3-6211053.html?tag=nefd.lede

Personally I do not use Skype in Singapore and during my trip to US.
The phone cards are not quite cheap calling among Singapore/US/China
(US$0.02 to 0.03 per minute) and the quality is quite good. And you
do not need to use your computer. Within US, Skype is said to be
quite ok but only one of my friends used Skype to call me. The others
use there Cell Phone to call me since they have many free air time
in the evening.

Do you use Skype?

Xiaofan

2007\10\02@015550 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> www.news.com/eBay-What-to-do-with-Skype/2100-7352_3-6211053.html?tag=nefd.lede
>
> Personally I do not use Skype in Singapore and during my trip to US.
> The phone cards are not quite cheap calling among Singapore/US/China
> (US$0.02 to 0.03 per minute) and the quality is quite good. And you
> do not need to use your computer. Within US, Skype is said to be
> quite ok but only one of my friends used Skype to call me. The others
> use there Cell Phone to call me since they have many free air time
> in the evening.
>
> Do you use Skype?

Yes, but for the better video codec (BW vs image Q) and end to end encryption.
It is certainly not the cheapest way to do long distance.

R

2007\10\02@025854 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/2/07, Xiaofan Chen <spam_OUTxiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I do not use Skype in Singapore and during my trip to US.
> The phone cards are not quite cheap calling among Singapore/US/China
> (US$0.02 to 0.03 per minute) and the quality is quite good. And you
> do not need to use your computer.

Typo here. The phone cards are *now* quite cheap!

2007\10\02@055406 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Robert Rolf wrote:

>> www.news.com/eBay-What-to-do-with-Skype/2100-7352_3-6211053.html?tag=nefd.lede
>>
>> Personally I do not use Skype in Singapore and during my trip to US.

>> Do you use Skype?
>
> Yes, but for the better video codec (BW vs image Q) and end to end
> encryption. It is certainly not the cheapest way to do long distance.

I think here in Brazil it's the cheapest long distance provider with a
decent sound quality. I don't like that it's proprietary (I'd prefer SIP),
but so far I haven't found a SIP provider with a similar price/quality
ratio. National SIP providers tend to be more expensive, and the ones
overseas tend to have not as good sound quality for calls to Brazilian
phones.

It's funny that they would write about making money in that article. One
thing that really angers me is their payment support. This is an issue that
would make me switch provider as soon as there is one with a comparable
price/quality ratio. Skype's credit card handler (Bibit) claims that I'm
behind an anonymous proxy when I use my ADSL broadband connection and
refuses to accept payments through that connection; I have to use dial-up.
Skype is not willing or capable to fix that.

Gerhard

2007\10\02@103743 by SM Ling

picon face
On 10/2/07, Gerhard Fiedler <.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>
> Robert Rolf wrote:
>
> >>
> www.news.com/eBay-What-to-do-with-Skype/2100-7352_3-6211053.html?tag=nefd.lede
> >>
> >> Personally I do not use Skype in Singapore and during my trip to US.
>
> >> Do you use Skype?
> >
> > Yes, but for the better video codec (BW vs image Q) and end to end
> > encryption. It is certainly not the cheapest way to do long distance.


XiaoFan,

I just got a Nokia GSM/Wifi phone and have just signed up StarHUb pfingo
plan (http://www.pfingo.com).  They give you have a local SG number 3115xxxx, and
free local calls (in/out landline and mobileline included) for 6 month,
thereafter 1SG$ per month for the basic plan.  So far their IDD charges are
quite close to the callback rate, and guess  they are half or a quarter of
the SIP providers (skype, voipstunt, etc).

My plan is to get one for an overseas relative, and shall be able to contact
them for free from now as both of us are already on broadband.

The log-in page needed for the free wifi spots is only justifiable for long
duration calls.

Ling SM

2007\10\02@150308 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> I think here in Brazil it's the cheapest long distance provider with a
> decent sound quality. I don't like that it's proprietary (I'd prefer SIP),
> but so far I haven't found a SIP provider with a similar price/quality
> ratio. National SIP providers tend to be more expensive, and the ones
> overseas tend to have not as good sound quality for calls to Brazilian
> phones.

SIP != CODEC, and saying "SIP sounds better" is a misnomer, and incorrect.

You can say "SIP using G.711" sounds better, or "SIP using G.729"... but
not just "SIP".

SIP is just a session standard.  The RTP stream that results is encoded
with whatever CODEC was negotiated by the endpoints.

Nate

2007\10\02@162424 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:03:41 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>...
> Do you use Skype?

Yes, several times a day, but almost always to other Skype users, so free.  I almost never spend any money with them.

The main reason is that my girlfriend lives in New York, so we talk on Skype whenever we feel like it.  It changes the way you think about making the call -
because all phone calls here have a minimum charge, you only pick up an ordinary phone when you have something to say, whereas with a free Skype call you just
call to say "Hi".  And having the text message feature is handy when you want to say something that doesn't justify sending an email, or want to send a file, or a
URL pointing to something interesting.

About the only paying option I use is to send SMS messages to someone's mobile phone - it appears to come from my mobile, but costs a third of using my real
mobile for the same thing.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\02@162425 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:03:41 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>...
> Do you use Skype?

Yes, several times a day, but almost always to other Skype users, so free.  I almost never spend any money with them.

The main reason is that my girlfriend lives in New York, so we talk on Skype whenever we feel like it.  It changes the way you think about making the call -
because all phone calls here have a minimum charge, you only pick up an ordinary phone when you have something to say, whereas with a free Skype call you just
call to say "Hi".  And having the text message feature is handy when you want to say something that doesn't justify sending an email, or want to send a file, or a
URL pointing to something interesting.

About the only paying option I use is to send SMS messages to someone's mobile phone - it appears to come from my mobile, but costs a third of using my real
mobile for the same thing.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\02@201252 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Nate Duehr wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
>> I think here in Brazil it's the cheapest long distance provider with a
>> decent sound quality. I don't like that it's proprietary (I'd prefer
>> SIP), but so far I haven't found a SIP provider with a similar
>> price/quality ratio. National SIP providers tend to be more expensive,
>> and the ones overseas tend to have not as good sound quality for calls
>> to Brazilian phones.
>
> SIP != CODEC, and saying "SIP sounds better" is a misnomer, and
> incorrect.

I looked and searched and looked and searched, but couldn't find where
someone wrote "SIP sounds better" (or worse, for that matter).

If you read what I wrote, you probably will realize that I did not really
talk about the SIP protocol, but rather about SIP providers.

And the "provider" part is quite important for long distance calls (that
is, VoIP calls to POTS lines); at least in Brazil. There are many criteria
that influence call quality; the codec (or the selection of codecs) is just
one, and probably not even the most important one.

Gerhard

2007\10\02@213059 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/3/07, Howard Winter <HDRWspamKILLspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> About the only paying option I use is to send SMS messages
> to someone's mobile phone - it appears to come from my mobile,
> but costs a third of using my real  mobile for the same thing.
>

Ah this is nice. Here in Singapore, phone cards charge to
an Australia/NZ/UK/Germany land phone is very cheap but
the charge to an Australia/UK mobile phone is much more
expensive.

Typical Land phone charge:  US$0.027/min (S$0.04)
Typical mobile phone charge:
7 times more expensive in the case of Australia,
10 times for NZ, 9 times for UK/Germany.

The reason is due to the higher charges for the gateways
from the mobile operators in these countries.

For China/US/Canada, they charge flat rates for land
phone and mobile phone (typically US$0.027/min or less).

Maybe Skype can be of good use for this purpose (SMS to
a foreign mobile phone with higher charge) -- but I am not
good at typing using T9. I prefer to call or Email.

Xiaofan

2007\10\03@035101 by peter green

flavicon
face

> For China/US/Canada, they charge flat rates for land
> phone and mobile phone (typically US$0.027/min or less).
>
>  
Yeah but in the US and canada at least the recipiant has to pay as well
with calls to mobiles.


2007\10\03@074220 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
peter green wrote:

>> For China/US/Canada, they charge flat rates for land phone and mobile
>> phone (typically US$0.027/min or less).
>
> Yeah but in the US and canada at least the recipiant has to pay as well
> with calls to mobiles.

Which I think is the only way that makes sense: charging the user of the
mobile phone for the airtime. This makes for a much better rate structure,
as it is the customer of the mobile phone company who they discuss prices
with. The way it is in Germany, Brazil and others (where the caller pays
most of the cost of the airtime) doesn't make that much sense and generally
leads to higher rates.

Gerhard

2007\10\03@080023 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/3/07, peter green <.....plugwashKILLspamspam.....p10link.net> wrote:
>
> > For China/US/Canada, they charge flat rates for land
> > phone and mobile phone (typically US$0.027/min or less).
> >
> >
> Yeah but in the US and Canada at least the recipiant has to
> pay as well with calls to mobiles.
>

In Singapore you can choose to have incoming call free or not to have.
In China, because of competition some of the places start to have
incoming free. The basic fee in China is cheap but overall the price is
still quite high.My parents pay double the amount for the phone charges
in China than my wife and I in Singapore.

By the way, it seems to me overall consumer price is cheapest in
US among developed countries. One of my colleague in US
visited London recently and he told me he could not imagine
why everything is so much more expensive than in US. And
the engineers in UK do not really earn more and need to pay
higher tax. My Master thesis supervisor stayed in UK for many
years after getting his PhD from Cambridge and worked in UK
for 9 years before coming to Singapore in 1995. He told me he
saved more money in Singapore as an senior lecturer within two
years than his 9 years stay in UK as an engineer. He did not
earn more in Singapore but apparently saved much more.
Of course this is partially due to some subsidy from the university
in Singapore and the fact he is staying in the flats provided by
the university. As an engineer in Singapore, I certainly could not
save that much. ;-(

Xiaofan

2007\10\03@085621 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>My Master thesis supervisor stayed in UK for many years after
>getting his PhD from Cambridge and worked in UK for 9 years
>before coming to Singapore in 1995. He told me he saved more
>money in Singapore as an senior lecturer within two years
>than his 9 years stay in UK as an engineer.

This does not surprise me. The UK is not known as 'rip off Britain for
nothing.

2007\10\04@080454 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:30:58 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>...
> Maybe Skype can be of good use for this purpose (SMS to
> a foreign mobile phone with higher charge) -- but I am not
> good at typing using T9. I prefer to call or Email.

But when you send an SMS using Skype, you're using a computer keyboard, so the typing is just like sending an email.  The difference is that it's received
automaticly at the person, without the recipient having to go to a computer and check for its arrival.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\04@085133 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/4/07, Howard Winter <EraseMEHDRWspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >...
> > Maybe Skype can be of good use for this purpose (SMS to
> > a foreign mobile phone with higher charge) -- but I am not
> > good at typing using T9. I prefer to call or Email.
>
> But when you send an SMS using Skype, you're using a computer
> keyboard, so the typing is just like sending an email.  The difference
> is that it's received automaticly at the person, without the recipient
> having to go to a computer and check for its arrival.
>
Ah that is true. Forget about that. I have not installed anything like
Skype for years because of the cheap phone cards available since
year 2000 when Singapore opened the telecom market.

Xiaofan

2007\10\04@085454 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 10/4/07, Howard Winter <HDRWspamspam_OUTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >...
> > Maybe Skype can be of good use for this purpose (SMS to
> > a foreign mobile phone with higher charge) -- but I am not
> > good at typing using T9. I prefer to call or Email.
>
> But when you send an SMS using Skype, you're using a computer
> keyboard, so the typing is just like sending an email.  The difference
> is that it's received automaticly at the person, without the recipient
> having to go to a computer and check for its arrival.
>
Ah that is true. Forget about that. I have not installed anything like
Skype for years because of the cheap phone cards available since
year 2000 when Singapore opened the telecom market.

Xiaofan

2007\10\04@101744 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:00:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On 10/3/07, peter green <@spam@plugwashKILLspamspamp10link.net> wrote:
> >
> > > For China/US/Canada, they charge flat rates for land
> > > phone and mobile phone (typically US$0.027/min or less).
> > >
> > >
> > Yeah but in the US and Canada at least the recipiant has to
> > pay as well with calls to mobiles.

Wow, we did away with this a decade or so ago.  The idea of someone else being able to make you pay money is anathema to most people.  Just think how
annoyed you'd be if you received unsolicited sales calls *and* had to pay for them!  :-)

> In Singapore you can choose to have incoming call free or not to have.

It has never been an option here - at one time it was part of the deal, and now it isn't.  Unless you're roaming in the USA, of course - and this annoys me immensely,
along with charging by the minute (which was also dropped here a long time ago).

> By the way, it seems to me overall consumer price is cheapest in
> US among developed countries. One of my colleague in US
> visited London recently and he told me he could not imagine
> why everything is so much more expensive than in US.

"Everything" in London tends to be more expensive than outside the city - but I agree that especially with the $:£ exchange rate around 2:1, buying stuff in the USA
is very much cheaper.

> And
> the engineers in UK do not really earn more and need to pay
> higher tax.

Is this really true?  It's very difficult to compare income tax rates because of the complicated way they are calculated - much more complicated in the USA,
incidentally.  In the UK it's so simple that most people (certainly 80%, maybe much higher) don't have to submit tax returns.  It's just deducted from their pay and
that's that.  Granted that VAT (17.5%) is much higher than sales taxes in the USA, even when there are several of them on top of each other (federal, state, local)
but we're lower than a lot of Europe - 19% in the Netherlands, 25% (I think) in Ireland, etc.

It's not fair to pick on Wouter, but as his web site is easy to get to, I'm going to!  (Sorry Wouter :-)  I was looking at prices for some Microchip items the other day
(the DV164122 Serial Analyser for example) and I looked at Wouter's site and at Microchip Direct.  Although shipping is significantly more from Microchip, the overall
cost for a single item is about 20% cheaper and this would improve on larger orders as the shipping becomes a lower proportion.  I have no idea why this should be,
but it's the sort of thing you get used to here!

{Quote hidden}

Housing expenses in the UK are certainly high - especially in the South East.  Some of this is because the money-lenders will lend ridiculous proportions of earnings
in mortgages - when I bought my house (24 years ago) the lending limit was 3x salary, and even that was hard to find - 2.5x was more usual.  When the interest
rates rocketed in the late 80s my mortgage repayment was a significant proportion of my take-home pay and I found it hard to make ends meet.  I understand that
it's now possible to get up to 5x salary mortgages, which means that a lot of people will be bankrupt if the interest rate takes off again.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\04@150614 by peter green

flavicon
face

> Which I think is the only way that makes sense: charging the user of the
> mobile phone for the airtime. This makes for a much better rate structure,
> as it is the customer of the mobile phone company who they discuss prices
> with. The way it is in Germany, Brazil and others (where the caller pays
> most of the cost of the airtime) doesn't make that much sense and generally
> leads to higher rates.
>  

On the other hand it strongly discourages marketing calls and other
timewasting calls to mobiles (yes I know the US has a law against
marketing calls to mobiles but from what I can gather it is widely
ignored, also in the US you can't even tell from the number if you are
calling a mobile).

2007\10\04@154623 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>>> Yeah but in the US and Canada at least the recipiant has to pay as well
>>> with calls to mobiles.
>
> Wow, we did away with this a decade or so ago.  The idea of someone else
> being able to make you pay money is anathema to most people.  Just think
> how annoyed you'd be if you received unsolicited sales calls *and* had
> to pay for them!  :-)

Well, what I don't like with the "caller pays" setup is that I (as caller)
have to know which phone is mobile and which is landline (which may be easy
for one country, but can get complicated when calling international) and
that I have to manage several sets of charges (just look at how simple
international charge tables are for calls into the USA and how complicated
they are for calls into countries where the caller pays mobile charges,
like Brazil and Germany).

Besides, I simply like the US way better: I (as caller) don't have to know
whether the phone I'm calling is mobile or not, I just call and have my
rate based on area code etc. (The "etc" part here is another story :) The
convenience of being mobile is with the phone user -- who is in a much
better situation to negotiate prices with the mobile provider than the
caller is. I'm not sure, but it seems that mobile charges in "caller pays
airtime" countries are higher than in "mobile phone user pays airtime"
countries, because of that.

Gerhard

2007\10\04@162039 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 20:06 +0100, peter green wrote:
> On the other hand it strongly discourages marketing calls and other
> timewasting calls to mobiles (yes I know the US has a law against
> marketing calls to mobiles but from what I can gather it is widely
> ignored, also in the US you can't even tell from the number if you are
> calling a mobile).


Actually you can tell (to a point), if you have the right contacts.

The prefixes for cell phones are always different from landlines since
cell phone providers buy up prefixes in blocks. The general person can't
tell, but phone providers certainly can.

Aside from that, if you see alot of phone number prefixes in your area
you can make educated guesses. In my case I used to be able to pretty
accurately guess whether a 416 number was landline or not (heck, at one
point I could tell a person the rough geographical area their landline
was located in!).

Please note though that number portability completely hoses this, in my
area at least you can now reassign a landline number to a mobile, so
eventually no matter how familiar you are with the prefixes in your area
code you're odds are bad... :)

As for telemarketers you are completely correct. I've received tons of
telemarketing calls on my landline (although technically it's not a
landline anymore, switched to VOIP, moved to a different area code, but
kept the same phone number...), but to this date can't recall a single
telemarketing call on either of my mobiles.

TTYL

2007\10\04@165255 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 20:06 +0100, peter green wrote:
>> On the other hand it strongly discourages marketing calls and other
>> timewasting calls to mobiles (yes I know the US has a law against
>> marketing calls to mobiles but from what I can gather it is widely
>> ignored, also in the US you can't even tell from the number if you are
>> calling a mobile).
>
>
> Actually you can tell (to a point), if you have the right contacts.
>
> The prefixes for cell phones are always different from landlines since
> cell phone providers buy up prefixes in blocks. The general person can't
> tell, but phone providers certainly can.

Not true in the U.S. anymore -- we have local number portability and any
number can literally go to any end-device.

With the advent of nationwide long-distance plans available on just
about any type of phone (cell, VoIP-based, or POTS) for very cheap, this
also means that many people are even keeping their old area codes when
they move.

(When a couple people in my family moved back to Colorado from Texas,
they had their Texas numbers on their cell phones for a couple of years
until they changed/re-upped their cell contracts.)

The only way to know for sure "where" a phone is, is to work for a
carrier and trace the call via call routing logs, anymore.

Nate

2007\10\04@165547 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
peter green wrote:

>> Which I think is the only way that makes sense: charging the user of the
>> mobile phone for the airtime. This makes for a much better rate
>> structure, as it is the customer of the mobile phone company who they
>> discuss prices with. The way it is in Germany, Brazil and others (where
>> the caller pays most of the cost of the airtime) doesn't make that much
>> sense and generally leads to higher rates.
>
> On the other hand it strongly discourages marketing calls and other
> timewasting calls to mobiles (yes I know the US has a law against
> marketing calls to mobiles but from what I can gather it is widely
> ignored, also in the US you can't even tell from the number if you are
> calling a mobile).

What good does it to discourage marketing calls to mobiles when all I have
is a landline?

If that's really the argument, why not make all phone calls as expensive as
calls to mobile phones? Think about it... :)

You can always hang up immediately on marketing calls.

Gerhard

2007\10\04@165705 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Herbert,

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:20:36 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I think for any real meaning of the phrase, this is "you can't tell"!  :-)

In the UK it's dead easy: all mobile phone numbers start 07.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\04@171304 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 21:57 +0100, Howard Winter wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:20:36 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 20:06 +0100, peter green wrote:
> > >... in the US you can't even tell from the number if you are
> > > calling a mobile).
> >
> >
> > Actually you can tell (to a point), if you have the right contacts.
> >
> > The prefixes for cell phones are always different from landlines since
> > cell phone providers buy up prefixes in blocks. The general person can't
> > tell, but phone providers certainly can.
>
> I think for any real meaning of the phrase, this is "you can't tell"!  :-)
>
> In the UK it's dead easy: all mobile phone numbers start 07.

However, I would like to mention (if it wasn't clarified earlier) that
for all intents and purposes there is zero reason for a person dialing a
number to need to know whether a number ends with a mobile or not in
North America. Since we have receiver pays billing it costs the dialing
person the same whether it's a landline, mobile or "other" they are
calling.

So although "neat", there's no real good reason in North America to know
what a phone number goes to.

In Europe it's very important to know since the rate differences are
staggering.

TTYL

2007\10\05@040507 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>In the UK it's dead easy: all mobile phone numbers start 07.

Yeah, they are in a different 'area code', with the rest of the area code
defining  the provider. Used to be the same in NZ, but I think all cell
phones there are now in one area code, whatever provider, now the analogue
service has been dropped.

2007\10\05@050259 by Tony Smith

picon face
> >In the UK it's dead easy: all mobile phone numbers start 07.
>
> Yeah, they are in a different 'area code', with the rest of
> the area code defining  the provider. Used to be the same in
> NZ, but I think all cell phones there are now in one area
> code, whatever provider, now the analogue service has been dropped.


Just look at the next digit or two, a quick survey will soon show the
pattern.  I can't remember what it is for mobiles in Australia, but for
premium rate numbers the prefix is '190', the next digit is the carrier, so
'2' is Telstra & '0' is Optus.

Same as credit cards, all Visa start with 4 and Mastercard with 5, but the
next few digits identifies the issuer (bank).

Tony

2007\10\05@081922 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gerhard,

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:23:31 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> What good does it to discourage marketing calls to mobiles when all I have
> is a landline?

If you don't have a mobile phone, why are you even discussing them?  :-)  :-)  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\05@162506 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>> What good does it to discourage marketing calls to mobiles when all I have
>> is a landline?
>
> If you don't have a mobile phone, why are you even discussing them?  :-)  :-)  :-)

Because I'm paying them when I call mobile phones in countries where caller
pays the airtime.

[Not exactly :-( but definitely not :-) ]

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...