[aprssig] 9600? Faster?

[Phillip B. Pacier]

Earl Needham wrote:

> At 07:29 AM 7/7/2005, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> I see no advantages at all to 9600 for APRS (except to use the 9600 baud
>> satellite)...  Bob
>
>
>         Well -- are we stuck at 1200?  Or should we try something even 
> faster than 9600?

Well, from a cost-effective standpoint, a great many people already have 
9600 gear (in the form of D7s and D700s).  I don't think it is a wasted 
effort to put up some 9600 stuff in the network.  Bob has shown an 
effective way to connect LANs via 9600 links, and *I* have shown that 
mobile 9600 works just fine <g>.

As for a national UHF frequency, don't count on it.  This has been 
discussed for years.  None of the frequencies proposed so far will work 
in Southern California due to the current allocations.  That is why I 
had to go down into the existing packet allocation (438.975) to get a 
9600 channel.

73
Phil - AD6NH