Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] APRS Activity in New Orleans

Stan Coleman [NØYXV] n0yxv at gihams.org
Sun Sep 4 06:31:36 UTC 2005


I have to eat some crow and say I thought of an answer to one of my earlier
questions. My earlier question was "What's wrong with IGateing traffic from New
Orleans to the internet?" I did think of one thing wrong with that and that is
if it's a two way stream. My guess is that N.O. will soon be using APRS for
emergency operations (if they haven't already) ANY traffic into the area could
stop an emergency message from getting to the command center.

I know we are all well aware that APRS in the US is only 1200 baud and it's
extremely easy to fill 1200 baud up fast. IGateing traffic from N.O. wouldn't
be so bad but setting up a link to send traffic into N.O. might just stop some
traffic in New Orleans. If you think about it they really don't need the
internet to operate. If the comand center can see only one digi and all the
people using trackers can see the one digi then they migh have everything they
already need.

>From the sounds of the last post it sounds like messages INTO New Orleans might
already be a problem. Although the poster did sound like he was the packet
police I think what he really ment was simply a kind reminder to all of us to
watch what we are doing.

Anybody want to jump in and correct me where my thinking has gone wrong please
feel free too. I know I don't know everything but I do know how to sound like I
know it all. :-)
--
visit us online at
www.gihams.org


Quoting VE7GDH <ve7gdh at rac.ca>:

> Ray (no callsign) wrote on 03/09/2005
>
> > I must respectfully ask by who's authority this "DO NOT
> > SEND MESSAGES" demand is issued?
>
> Demand? Perhaps you haven't been watching the news. There was a devastating
> hurricane in the vicinity of New Orleans recently. The death toll is
> certainly in the hundreds... possibly as many as 10,000. Just common sense
> should tell you that frivolous messages sent into the area are just QRM.
> Most people don't need a demand to prevent them from causing wilful
> interference with an emergency operation. Any frequency that has emergency
> communications taking place on it - not just the APRS frequency - should be
> reserved for just that... emergency communications. There's a big difference
> between relaying emergency traffic and clogging the airwaves with fluff. I
> hope you do exercise prudent judgement.
>
> 73 es cul - Keith VE7GDH
> --
> "I may be lost, but I know exactly where I am!"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>




More information about the aprssig mailing list