[aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?

[William McKeehan]

Nothing wrong ith 145.something except that it does not have the digi
infrastructure that is on 144.39.

See my other note about activity and goals.

I'm really looking for reasons to give someone to NOT put a packet node (BBS
or just PBBS) on 144.39.

On Fri, September 8, 2006 6:58 pm, Robbie, wa9inf said:
> William McKeehan wrote:
>
>>What is the general concensus about having a packet node on 144.390?
>>
>>
>>
> I would wonder what's wrong with the channels like 145.010, 145.050, and
> I think 144.950.. Of course, I beleive those are channels around me that
> have "nodes", BBSs I guess you mean.
>
> What is the level of activity on the 144.390 frequency.. I have reason
> to beleive it would be a no go around the Chicagoland area!
>
> Robbie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>


-- 
William McKeehan
KI4HDU
Internet: mckeehan at mckeehan.homeip.net
http://mckeehan.homeip.net

Do not go where the path may lead,
go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
     - Ralph Waldo Emerson