[aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
Jim Duncan jdbandman at earthlink.netSat Sep 9 13:50:59 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
- Next message: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Connected traffic frames takes precedence over unconnected (UI) frames. To place connected traffic on an APRS channel would pretty well shut down the flow of APRS traffic. The whole point of using unconnected protocol is to have traffic moving WITHOUT the need for the user to know/understand the network. I think you're asking for trouble here. Do you REALLY want people reading bulletin board messages, connected keyboard chatting, etc. making your APRS tracking information take a secondary precedence? Granted, the prevalence of internet email has pretty well reduced packet BBS use and what bulletin boards that are still out there exchange/forward traffic on UHF backbones. If you introduce connected packet traffic be prepared to answer the onslaught of angry APRS users who want to know why this was done and why it shouldn't be on the traditional packet radio frequencies. There is no advantage for the APRS system in having nodes on the frequency, at least not at the current state of development. Perhaps down the road the coders will develop a way to use nodes and backbones but, again, the interent datastream beats that by about a million miles which begs the question: "What's the point?" -- Jim Duncan, KU0G
- Previous message: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
- Next message: [aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
