Jump to content

WIFI


dave mackie

Featured Posts

32 minutes ago, jetzi said:

 

Really it looks like the best option I have is the 5G router you linked https://www.comms365.com/product/2-port-5g-router/

 

It says "You would need two 2×2 MIMO Antenna with this router" - is two 2x2 antennae the same as a 4x4?

Yes, mostly. But a single 4x4 is cheaper, easier to mount, and *may* give better performance since the antennas are designed to work together and *may* be better for 5G beamforming.

 

If you're thinking of some kind of mast, an external router like the Huawei one (or one like the linked one in a waterproof box up a mast) would give several dB more signal by avoiding cable losses to an external antenna.

 

If you can get one in the UK, a 5G 4x4 router/modem mounted on a pole is likely to give you the best overall performance -- it's pretty much the "5G modem" you asked for:

 

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/routers/5g-cpe-win/

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/three-uk-5g-down-due-to-upload-issues.36349/page-2

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/outdoor-cpes.37141/

 

There's also the ZTE MC7010 which might be easier to get -- just make sure it's the EU/UK version:

https://5gstore.co.uk/product/zte-mc7010-5g-router-zte-5g-pro-outdoor-5g-wifi-router-hotspot/

https://www.router-switch.com/zte-5g-cpe-outdoor-wifi-mc7010.html

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jetzi said:

Ok thanks, so when the product says it needs two 2x2 antennae, you can instead just use one 4x4 (cheaper, easier and maybe better).

 

 

Yes that's very much my train of thought, because I can't see much reason why my current setup is performing inadequately. My theories are a) my router only supporting Cat 4 LTE, and b) the cable losses on the 5m cables that come with the Poynting antenna. To solve B I could use a shorter mast and trim the cables, but I then lose the height advantage. Better I think to locate the modem up the mast.

 

These don't seem to have antenna ports, are you suggesting just using the internal antennae on these, but mounting them high up on a pole?

 

Yes, the antennae are internal. 5m of cable will have maybe 2db-3dB of loss, so you gain this back. The problem is getting hold of one, neither the Huawei or ZTE is easy to find in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jetzi said:

Yes that's very much my train of thought, because I can't see much reason why my current setup is performing inadequately. My theories are a) my router only supporting Cat 4 LTE

My Huawei B311 Cat 4 gave me about half the speed of a B535 cat 7 router in the same location, and that's with good signal strength.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loddon said:

My Huawei B311 Cat 4 gave me about half the speed of a B535 cat 7 router in the same location, and that's with good signal strength.

 

My B310 serves me fine, but there are times when things buffer a lot, or I don't get a signal. Are we saying that a B535 Cat 7 would help with this, and a B818 Cat 19, even more? I can feel a big spend coming up :(  

 

:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only say it made a difference here when I upgraded from a Huawei 311 to an 818 and also on the boat where I went from a TP-link M7350 to a Huawei 535. The 311 and 535  were acquired on contract renewals from "3" I had to buy the 818 ☹️ but I did get some £ back selling the 311 and the 7350 on eBay

 

YMMV

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jetzi said:

Where there is a will there is often a way! But I'm not sold quite yet, I still think a large dedicated external antenna *in addition* to mounting the modem up a mast to shorten the cables would be the best.

Suggest you read this:

 

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/04/how-to-choose-an-external-4g-or-5g-mobile-broadband-antenna.html

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/forums/mobile-broadband-and-fixed-wireless.106/

 

Antenna size -- above a certain point, like the square Poynting cross-polarised ones -- doesn't increase signal level any more in an omnidirectional antenna, because of the short wavelengths of cellular signals. Like long TV aerials a big antenna increases forward gain in a directional antenna, but you don't want that on a boat. If properly designed you can in theory actually get more gain with internal antennae (if the router case is big enough) because the antennae can directly connect to the reciever circuits instead of having to be matched to 50 ohms -- and also you avoid both the cable and two connectors which add some loss.

 

So it's quite likely (but not guaranteed) that the Huawei/ZTE external routers up a mast with CAT5 Ethernet connection into the boat (no losses to worry about!) will give better reception than even a 4x4 MIMO router with cables to the Poynting XPOL 4x4 antenna -- it all depends how good a job Huawei/ZTE have done with their RF design compared to Poynting and whichever router/modem you use. I've worked with design engineers from both companies in the past, and in my experience Huawei in particular are technically good -- not saying ZTE aren't, but they're a bit more downmarket so may be more tempted to pennypinch. Or not, the only way to be sure would be to compare all three solutions, but I guess you're not going to do that...

 

The ZTE is newer and supports Wi-Fi 6 and mmWave, it also uses the Qualcomm X55 chipset which has a better reputation than the Balong 5000 used in the Huawei.

 

But there's a comment here which recpommends the Huawei...

 

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/outdoor-cpes.37141/

 

Have a ZTE MC7010 outdoor unit imported from HK and can’t really recommend it. At least not the HK/Asian version which you will find in the popular online shops. Before buying have found reviews that the EU/PL version supports band locking features which influenced my decision. Surprise surprise, the HK/Asian version doesn’t have this feat in the menu and also doesn’t allow you to upload any other firmware, only OTA check (which is broken). Thought that it may had been a decent/cheaper alternative to the Huawei CPE WIN (especially having a Snapdragon X50 modem) but reality is it’s not. It’s dropping 5G regularly to 3G/4G a few times a day despite decent and consistent SINR (15dB on EE, 30dB on O2) or completely dropping the connection (especially if you select modem mode as 5G NSA only), which is causing headaches with video conferencing. This is probably because of my current location where I am in the middle of several masts. Anyway, there is no option to log/view logs in the menu to check. Looking at other feedback on the forum, Huawei CPE WIN seems to be the only sensible option re ODU’s.

 

Re mmWave, yes, the MC7010 has a very capable Snapdragon X50/X55 chip which technically supports pretty much everything. The challenge we have is to find a ZTE firmware that is least obstructive..

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want something off-the-shelf which is known to work and gives excellent performance -- and is supported! -- this "Performance 5G" package might be your best bet, even though it costs over a grand (which you said you didn't mind...)

 

https://router-mods.co.uk/shop/ols/categories/4g--5g-router--antenna-packages

https://router-mods.co.uk/shop/ols/products/full-package-huawei-h112-370-pre-modified-router-with-4x4-mimo-4g-and-5g-antenna

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/success-on-three-with-modded-router.37652/

 

It's the internal Huawei 5G router modified to connect to external antennas (up to 8, 4x4G + 4x5G), bundled with 3 Poynting 2x2 MIMO V3 antennas which have 3dB more gain than the V2 version, see details on the web page.

 

N.B. Just looked them up, these are directional antennas so maybe not the best choice for a boat!!! They also do the omni antennas (2x2 and 4x4 MIMO), and apparently (from the forum) the site owner Chris is very helpful and knowledgeable, suggest you contact him and explain what you want. Probably 2 of the 4x4 antennas is the best choice, this connects to all 8 antenna ports and gives you 4x4 MIMO on both 4G and 5G, and would be cheaper than the package with 3 2x2 directional antennas as well as easier to mount.

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

Be very careful with frequencies, there are UK sold routers that don't cover all the frequencies on 4g let alone 5g.

Huawei AI cube springs to mind.

Correct, and lots of people have been caught out by this, not just ones imported directly from China -- some of which claim to be "worldwide" but aren't, or at least the software isn't even if the hardware is...

 

There are few viable solutions to the UK 5G/4x4 MIMO problem at the moment, and certainly no cheap ones.

 

It would be interesting to know how the Poynting XPOL-1 5G antennas mounted on a (relatively short) mast compare to the MIMO-3-14 mounted on the boat roof:

 

https://poynting.tech/antennas/xpol-1-5g/?compare=5827

https://poynting.tech/antennas/mimo-3-14/?compare=5827

 

The roof-mounted one has several dB higher gain and may pick up some more gain when flush-mounted on a steel roof which forms a ground plane underneath to reflect the radio signal -- and another dB or so because of shorter cables. This could mean that in reality it has similar gain to the mast-mounted ones (or maybe even a bit better?) but without the hassle of fixing and raising a mast.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could mount a parabolic reflector under the antenna like a satellite dish pointing straight up? And still put it up on a mast - im convinced that in most boating conditions mounting the receiver high is the most important thing, particularly when dealing with higher frequencies, because their penetration through trees and buildings is weaker.

 

Speaking of frequencies, can someone help me understand the UK frequency bands. Most networks operate 5G on 3.4GHz (with the exception of Three which operate on "3.6 to 4GHz" - implying that they bought all those bands??).

 

However it seems like no 5G devices support 3400MHz, and when looking at the WiFi bands, 3.4GHz doesn't even seem to feature as a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

 

What gives here, what should I be looking for when trying to find a supported device? What limits a device from supporting say n78 = 3.5GHz and not 3.4GHz, is it the physical size of the antenna or a software limitation or something else?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jetzi said:

I guess you could mount a parabolic reflector under the antenna like a satellite dish pointing straight up? And still put it up on a mast - im convinced that in most boating conditions mounting the receiver high is the most important thing, particularly when dealing with higher frequencies, because their penetration through trees and buildings is weaker.

 

Speaking of frequencies, can someone help me understand the UK frequency bands. Most networks operate 5G on 3.4GHz (with the exception of Three which operate on "3.6 to 4GHz" - implying that they bought all those bands??).

 

However it seems like no 5G devices support 3400MHz, and when looking at the WiFi bands, 3.4GHz doesn't even seem to feature as a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

 

What gives here, what should I be looking for when trying to find a supported device? What limits a device from supporting say n78 = 3.5GHz and not 3.4GHz, is it the physical size of the antenna or a software limitation or something else?

 

A parabolic reflector won't work, cellular signals don't come from above unlike a satellite.

 

I posted some curves earlier showing aerial gain vs. height above ground in rural/urban/built-up conditions. Bearing in mind that an aerial on the boat roof is already several feet up (maybe 4'?) then where reception is likeliest to be poor (the countryside) you gain 6dB in signal level every time you double the height, so a 2m mast will gain maybe 8dB which is quite a lot. But to gain another 6dB you need another 10' of height which means a 5m mast.

 

Don't confuse 3G/4G/5G cellular bands with Wi-Fi (or Bluetooth), they're not at all the same -- Wi-Fi and Bluetooth use unlicensed bands where anything goes (routers, PCs, posh appliances...), cellular bands have strict controls where not all bands are lecensed in all countries and subsections of each licensed band are sold off to different operators.

 

https://kenstechtips.com/index.php/uk-network-frequency-bands

https://awtg.co.uk/5g-spectrum-uk

 

Some devices may not physically have the antennas/filters to support some bands (hardware limitation), but it's more common that the bands are restricted by software according to which country this is licensed for, because "licensing" means you're only allower to transmit in bands allowwed in thet country. On top of this if devices are locked to particular networks they may also be restricted to the bands used by that network operator.

 

It might be possible to confirm exactly which bands the hardware will support by digging into device specifications, but unless you buy something with UK-specific software it's often difficult to tell whether this will support the UK bands you want to use.

 

 

UK_cellular_bands.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another can of worms I found with 4g was that allthough a router says it covers  B1, B3 and B20 which are the frequencies used by 3 it will only pair channels on B1 and B20 which means effectively that its a single channel unit  as 3 uses B20 for 3g round here and the router cant be forced to pair B1 and B3. Cant remember which router that was but it took a lot of research to find that little nugget ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

parabolic reflector won't work, cellular signals don't come from above unlike a satellite.

A flat reflector then - something to mimic a boat roof while still allowing for the height gain to avoid having the signals pass through trees and such on their way from the tower.

 

2 hours ago, IanD said:

you gain 6dB in signal level every time you double the height, so a 2m mast will gain maybe 8dB which is quite a lot. But to gain another 6dB you need another 10' of height which means a 5m mast.

I'm quite happy to erect a 5m mast, but still, 3m is better than 2m and 2m is better than 1m - we don't have to aim to double the gain specifically.

 

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Don't confuse 3G/4G/5G cellular bands with Wi-Fi (or Bluetooth), they're not at all the same -- Wi-Fi and Bluetooth use unlicensed bands

Yeah I realise they're very different. What's very frustrating is that most WiFi access points operate on two bands - 2.4GHz and 5GHz, the second of which - annoyingly - is often abbreviated to "5G" which collides with the other abbreviation for 5th generation cellular technology.

 

All the network operators in the UK operate 5G(eneration) at 3.4G(igahertz), except Three which lists it as 3.6-4GHz. I hear that they are also rolling out "sort of 5G" at 700MHz which has higher penetration and better distance.

 

However 3.4GHz doesn't have a "name" like "n78" or "B20" that are listed as the supported bands, which makes me think that either no manufacturers are making equipment for the UK's fledgling network yet, OR what the networks call "3.4GHz" is actually n77 = "3.3-3.8GHz" or something, unfortunately I don't understand what this really means so I don't know how to judge. All I know is that I haven't found a 5G modem that lists "3.4GHz" as a supported frequency.

 

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

allthough a router says it covers  B1, B3 and B20 which are the frequencies used by 3 it will only pair channels on B1 and B20 which means effectively that its a single channel unit  as 3 uses B20 for 3g round here

What do you mean by "pair channels", is this the MIMO thing, having info coming over two different frequencies? If Three uses only B20 is it actually the modem's "fault" that it can't be a multi channel unit, or is it just the fact that Three doesn't support multi channels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jetzi said:

What do you mean by "pair channels", is this the MIMO thing, having info coming over two different frequencies? If Three uses only B20 is it actually the modem's "fault" that it can't be a multi channel unit, or is it just the fact that Three doesn't support multi channels?

my memory is fading.

This thread explains it and again its the B900

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/b900-three-and-the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-megabits.36508/

 

The whole thread isworth reading but heres relevant bit;

 

The CAT level is a simplistic number which generalises the 'level' of technology that a device supports. The higher the number the 'better' it should be. However that's very dependant on the provider in terms of what frequency bands a provider uses, aggregations that are available and what levels of MIMO and QAM are deployed on their network combined with what the individual device supports.
For home use, where the device doesn't move, knowing how your local mast is configured is key as to what the theoretical bandwidths you could expect (theoretical because in practice other users, interference and potentially backhaul connections are just some variables that would impact that theoretical speed).

Three use 4 different bands for their 4G network. Their primary is Band 3 while Band 1 has recently started to be used for 4G as it is moved over from 3G. Band 20 is mainly used for deeper building penetration. Band 32 is only available is a handful of places.
If you're looking for a device to use on Three then looking for one that is capable of aggregating at least B3+1 would be a good bet. Unfortunately while the B900 is a CAT6 device it cannot aggregate B3+1, it can only aggregate B20+32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, jetzi said:

A flat reflector then - something to mimic a boat roof while still allowing for the height gain to avoid having the signals pass through trees and such on their way from the tower.

 

I'm quite happy to erect a 5m mast, but still, 3m is better than 2m and 2m is better than 1m - we don't have to aim to double the gain specifically.

 

Yeah I realise they're very different. What's very frustrating is that most WiFi access points operate on two bands - 2.4GHz and 5GHz, the second of which - annoyingly - is often abbreviated to "5G" which collides with the other abbreviation for 5th generation cellular technology.

 

All the network operators in the UK operate 5G(eneration) at 3.4G(igahertz), except Three which lists it as 3.6-4GHz. I hear that they are also rolling out "sort of 5G" at 700MHz which has higher penetration and better distance.

 

However 3.4GHz doesn't have a "name" like "n78" or "B20" that are listed as the supported bands, which makes me think that either no manufacturers are making equipment for the UK's fledgling network yet, OR what the networks call "3.4GHz" is actually n77 = "3.3-3.8GHz" or something, unfortunately I don't understand what this really means so I don't know how to judge. All I know is that I haven't found a 5G modem that lists "3.4GHz" as a supported frequency.

 

What do you mean by "pair channels", is this the MIMO thing, having info coming over two different frequencies? If Three uses only B20 is it actually the modem's "fault" that it can't be a multi channel unit, or is it just the fact that Three doesn't support multi channels?

A flat reflector doesn't work unless the antenna is designed to work with it and is close to it (less than a quarter of a wavelength away) otherwise you can get destructive  interference -- it's the same principle as boundary layer microphones. The antennas designed to work with a ground plane/roof have to be close to it, ones designed to work in free space have to be well away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Loddon said:

my memory is fading.

This thread explains it

OK thanks I understand. So devices need the capability to aggregate certain bands, you need to know in advance what bands your network uses and ensure that the device has the capability to aggregate at least two of the common bands your network uses.

 

I could just scrap the idea of 5G and focus just on finding the best 4G modem (as in, one that aggregates the bands my network is most likely to use).

 

6 hours ago, IanD said:

flat reflector doesn't work unless the antenna is designed to work with it and is close to it (less than a quarter of a wavelength away) otherwise you can get destructive  interference -- it's the same principle as boundary layer microphones. The antennas designed to work with a ground plane/roof have to be close to it, ones designed to work in free space have to be well away from it.

Good to know, won't try to add a reflector. What I'm getting at though is that if you are comparing the "roof mount" vehicular antennae with the "mast free space" antennae and the roof mounted ones work better, you COULD mount the roof ones in the middle of a circular steel disc say 1m diameter on top of a mast to get the best of both worlds.

 

Just looking geometrically, I feel like a vertical "pole" type antenna mounted at as close to the same height as the mast as possible - likely meaning as tall as possible - (so that the electromagnetic waves strike it as perpendicularly as possible) intuitively seems like the ideal configuration.

 

6 hours ago, Loddon said:

If you're looking for a device to use on Three then looking for one that is capable of aggregating at least B3+1 would be a good bet.

I know this is from the thread you linked rather than advice, but for the record I have tried EE and Three, and EE is just a significantly better network in every way but particularly coverage, speed and customer service. I wouldn't consider Three as an option.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jetzi said:

OK thanks I understand. So devices need the capability to aggregate certain bands, you need to know in advance what bands your network uses and ensure that the device has the capability to aggregate at least two of the common bands your network uses.

 

I could just scrap the idea of 5G and focus just on finding the best 4G modem (as in, one that aggregates the bands my network is most likely to use).

 

Good to know, won't try to add a reflector. What I'm getting at though is that if you are comparing the "roof mount" vehicular antennae with the "mast free space" antennae and the roof mounted ones work better, you COULD mount the roof ones in the middle of a circular steel disc say 1m diameter on top of a mast to get the best of both worlds.

 

Just looking geometrically, I feel like a vertical "pole" type antenna mounted at as close to the same height as the mast as possible - likely meaning as tall as possible - (so that the electromagnetic waves strike it as perpendicularly as possible) intuitively seems like the ideal configuration.

 

I know this is from the thread you linked rather than advice, but for the record I have tried EE and Three, and EE is just a significantly better network in every way but particularly coverage, speed and customer service. I wouldn't consider Three as an option.

Reflectors only work with antennas that are designed to use them, like the roof-mounting ones. With antennas designed to work in free space (like the pole-mounting ones) a close-in reflector will not only screw up the radiation pattern and gain flatness but can also affect the impedance. Just don't do it...

 

The tall pole antennas will only be better if they have higher gain and are omnidirectional, from memory the peak gain is bigger but they're also partly directional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the attention to aerials and gain etc are missing the factor of location. In Plymouth with a 3 mobile MIFI the performance varies dependant on the time of day and the day of the week. At 8 am on a sunday morning it is very good, but at 3pm on a Saturday in term time (loads of students locally) it can be appalling frequently dropping offline (more likely dropped by the server) and struggling to log on because the local system is way overloaded. As 5G signaal is 'line of sight' much more than 4G, location is going to be even more critical in built up areas where you are 'squinting' between building to see the mast. At present 5G coverage is almost non existant outside big cities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Detling said:

All the attention to aerials and gain etc are missing the factor of location. In Plymouth with a 3 mobile MIFI the performance varies dependant on the time of day and the day of the week. At 8 am on a sunday morning it is very good, but at 3pm on a Saturday in term time (loads of students locally) it can be appalling frequently dropping offline (more likely dropped by the server) and struggling to log on because the local system is way overloaded. As 5G signaal is 'line of sight' much more than 4G, location is going to be even more critical in built up areas where you are 'squinting' between building to see the mast. At present 5G coverage is almost non existant outside big cities.

 

All true, mobile bandwidth is a resource shared by everybody who connects to a basestation. It's why benchmarks from 5G enthusiasts saying "Wow, I get x00Mbps!!!" should be taken with a pinch of salt; wait until there are a lot more 5G handsets out there and then see what happens to data rates. They'll drop due to network congestion just like 4G (or 3G) rates do today -- but don't forget that 5G has several times higher network capacity than 4G, so even if they drop by a similar percentage they'll start from a higher number.

 

Where 5G masts exist, which today is indeed mostly in big cities, but is being rolled out fairly rapidly, partly driven by the requirement to remove Huawei equipment. It'll still be some time before coverage of 5G gets close to that of 4G, but it will happen.

 

Network congestion is unlikely to be a problem for boats "out in the sticks" anyway, which seems to be where most complaints about slow data rates come from. But then 5G will get here last... 😞

 

None of which changes the fact that a better aerial will give higher data rates most of the time, or reception where there is none with a poorer aerial 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/01/2022 at 16:26, IanD said:

All true, mobile bandwidth is a resource shared by everybody who connects to a basestation. It's why benchmarks from 5G enthusiasts saying "Wow, I get x00Mbps!!!" should be taken with a pinch of salt; wait until there are a lot more 5G handsets out there and then see what happens to data rates. They'll drop due to network congestion just like 4G (or 3G) rates do today -- but don't forget that 5G has several times higher network capacity than 4G, so even if they drop by a similar percentage they'll start from a higher number.

 

Where 5G masts exist, which today is indeed mostly in big cities, but is being rolled out fairly rapidly, partly driven by the requirement to remove Huawei equipment. It'll still be some time before coverage of 5G gets close to that of 4G, but it will happen.

 

Network congestion is unlikely to be a problem for boats "out in the sticks" anyway, which seems to be where most complaints about slow data rates come from. But then 5G will get here last... 😞

 

None of which changes the fact that a better aerial will give higher data rates most of the time, or reception where there is none with a poorer aerial 🙂

I may have misunderstood how 5G works: isn't it a mesh whereby each device acts as a node so that data can take multiple pathways? Rather like t'internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

I may have misunderstood how 5G works: isn't it a mesh whereby each device acts as a node so that data can take multiple pathways? Rather like t'internet?

No. The basestations act as a mesh but linked via optical fibers to the cellular infrastructure, just like 3G/4G each mobile handset can send/recieve user data to one basestation while communicating with others to decide whether to switch basestations if there's a better one available. The handsets cannot communicate with each other, because the transmit and receive bands are wrong -- TX for a handset is RX for a basestation and vice versa.

 

In the future in 5G a new feature called "distributed-MIMO" may be rolled out where one handset can use links to more than one basestation at the same time to get higher data rates and better reliability, but this needs so-called "NR" (New Radio) basestations which are not built yet in the UK -- and almost certainly new mobiles which support this feature. It still won't be possible for one mobile to talk directly to another one.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.