[aprssig] Failed APRS?
Jan T. Pharo la2bba at jpharo.netTue Jan 20 19:22:41 UTC 2009
- Previous message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Next message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Cap Pennell" <cap at cruzio.com>, Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:51:05 -0800 > >At least now, since November, it been agreed unanimously by the member >national radio societies to adopt the APRS >"New n-N Paradigm", as published by WB4APR, for use within IARU Region 1, to >ensure Worldwide >consistency regarding parameter settings, improving the overall APRS network >flow, as well >as providing a common baseline for future improvements. Right. But I was writing about universal support for 144.99, not for the n-N paradigm. However, I misread Wes' sentence, losing a "not" so we did agree, really. ||Problem is, there is not universal support for that frequency. My intention was to repeat that there are more APRS frequencies, but I didn't read slowly enough before posting. In fact, I was about to go to the tv to see a transmission from Washington, D.C., (in the USA) and was in a hurry :-) -- 73 de Jan, LA2BBA Hvaler, Norway
- Previous message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Next message: [aprssig] Failed APRS?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
