[aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?

[Home Andy]

APRS pretty much saturates many areas.  Packet nodes should probably not be
conflicting
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William McKeehan" <mckeehan at mckeehan.homeip.net>
To: "TAPR APRS Mailing List" <aprssig at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?


> How much APRS activity? I currently have an ALOHA Circle that is around
100
> miles and a total of 279 stations in my heard list (24 hour life cycle).
>
> Packet goals are to use packet to transfer longer messages or files,
primarily
> to prepare for doing such during events where such needs present
themselves.
>
> We have worked on the APRS network on 144.39 so that the local area is
very
> well covered; There are no packet digi's around, only a couple of
high-level
> "nodes" (X-1J4 I think). I was thinking that we could take advantage of
the
> work that has gone into the APRS network.
>
> What I don't know is how well traditional packet would play with the
existing
> APRS network. If I have a node on 144.39, will it kill the APRS traffic
while
> it's working or would the APRS traffic be able to squeeze in.
>
> I appreciate the feedback; I know very little about traditional packet.
>
> On Fri, September 8, 2006 6:08 pm, wa7nwp at jnos.org said:
> >> What is the general concensus about having a packet node on 144.390?
> >>
> >
> > How much APRS activity?  How many normal APRS users?  What "packet"
goals?
> >   80/20 or 90/10 for our data channels seems like a good plan to me.
> >
> > Bill - WA7NWP
> >
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig