[aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
kg6rwo at comcast.net
Sat Sep 9 08:17:11 CDT 2006
APRS pretty much saturates many areas. Packet nodes should probably not be
----- 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
> 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,
> to prepare for doing such during events where such needs present
> We have worked on the APRS network on 144.39 so that the local area is
> well covered; There are no packet digi's around, only a couple of
> "nodes" (X-1J4 I think). I was thinking that we could take advantage of
> work that has gone into the APRS network.
> What I don't know is how well traditional packet would play with the
> APRS network. If I have a node on 144.39, will it kill the APRS traffic
> 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"
> > 80/20 or 90/10 for our data channels seems like a good plan to me.
> > Bill - WA7NWP
> William McKeehan
> Internet: mckeehan at 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
More information about the aprssig