[OZAPRS] HF APRS
vk2tv at exemail.com.au
Sat Aug 11 10:36:52 EST 2007
Richard Hoskin wrote:
>Yep we have a good APRS HF network now.
>Anyone who is travelling in the out back will have a good chance of being
>received when every one is running an appropriate installation.
>However as stated in previous messages. A transmit only device in this
>context would not be condoned as being inappropriate and goes against the
>Australian Radio communications Licence Conditions(Amateur Licence)
> Read <
>s/radam_1of97.pdf > for more information.
>>From: ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au [mailto:ozaprs-bounces at aprs.net.au] On
>>Behalf Of Horst Leykam
>>Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2007 2:42 PM
>>To: ozaprs at aprs.net.au
>>Subject: Re: [OZAPRS] HF APRS
>>When travelling, HF APRS is the ONLY way to go. One gets pretty well
>>complete coverage around the country. A simple ssb transmitter (no rx)
>>do the job. But, we really don't want too much traffic on 30m, do we? It
>>would spoil it for me.......
>Ozaprs mailing list
>Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
Hi Richard and all,
What you say about the legalities of tx only is quite valid and I
wouldn't support a tx only option.
If one considers the requirement to first listen to ensure the frequency
is clear, where does that place modes such as HF packet, for example,
that can transmit over other stations. DCD will (should) prevent this
for valid data but not for a voice transmission, again, for example.
I certainly wouldn't risk opening a can of worms by asking the ACMA for
their opinion but I would suggest that commonsense should apply, and
recommend that we take all "reasonable" steps to minimise interference
to other stations.
If we know that a piece of equipment is going to cause interference to
other stations because it has no mechanism to prevent that interference,
and we use that piece of equipment, that is not taking reasonable steps,
in my opinion.
Ozaprs mailing list
Ozaprs at aprs.net.au
More information about the Ozaprs