<html>
<body>
Andrew,<br><br>
439.100 is documented here.....<br><br>
<a href="http://vk4.aprs.net.au/qldnetwork.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://vk4.aprs.net.au/qldnetwork.htm</a><br><br>
Scroll to bottom of page, take 5 chill pills, THEN read ;-) Its
only 1 frequency in a gazillion others. Its just another APRS aspect of
the hobby. IF we fill up 70cm with lotsa signals, we MIGHT just save it
from commercial interests. IF you don't use the RF Spectrum....some
commercial interest will want to buy it.<br>
You will notice what my email client thought of your post....
;-)<br><br>
73 Jack VK4JRC<br><br>
<br><br>
At 07:02 AM 11/6/2009, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2><b>What you dont
want<br>
</b></font> <br>
<font size=2>01. DIGIS beaconing every 5 minutes<br>
02. INET to RF traffic swamping the freq<br>
03. No INET to RF path (messaging)<br>
04. Mobiles not being able to get through<br>
05. Mobiles sending at high rates<br>
06. Unnecessary geograhically non relavant data being sent to RF from
INET<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2><b>What you do want<br>
</b></font> <br>
<font size=2>07. Digis beaconing sensibly<br>
08. INET to RF kept to a minimum or even just messaging<br>
09. Both ways messaging<br>
10. Mobiles have a good chance of getting through<br>
11. Mobiles sending at sensible rates and using smart digi where
possible.<br>
12. Geographically relavent data sent to RF IF you have to.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>At the moment, we have some of 01, 02, some 03, some of 04,
some of 06<br>
At the moment, we have some of 07, none of 08, some of 09, some of 10,
some of 11, some of 12<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>Remember, not everyone has rx capable mobiles<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>And if the packets are to help people at home, they should
really be using the internet to help with bandwidth.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>Conserve the RF spectrum<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:vk4tec@tech-software.net">Andrew Rich</a>
<br>
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ozaprs@aprs.net.au">Australian APRS Users</a>
<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">TAPR APRS Mailing List</a>
<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, November 06, 2009 6:22 AM<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [OZAPRS] IGATES in south east qld Australia<br><br>
<dd><font size=2>I recently fitted the car with APRS.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>I am hearing some INET to RF traffic on 145.175 MHz<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>I am hearing almost constant INET to RF traffic on
439.100 MHz<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>What I find weird is, most people seem to be running
dumb trackers, ie they can't even RX the packets.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>My question is, who or what is the INET to RF supposed
to support then ?<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>I am not sure everyone is doing both way gating as well,
I tried a few INET to RF messages.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>Surely you would favour the mobiles.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>It makes it really hard to impossible for mobiles to get
out.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>Can you please look at this situation.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2>Andrew VK4TEC<br>
</font><br>
<hr>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>OZAPRS mailing list<br>
<dd>OZAPRS@aprs.net.au<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a><br><br>
<hr>
<br>
<dd>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
<dd>Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com/" eudora="autourl">www.avg.com</a> <br>
<dd>Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.50/2481 - Release Date:
11/04/09 19:51:00<br><br>
</dl>_______________________________________________<br>
OZAPRS mailing list<br>
OZAPRS@aprs.net.au<br>
<a href="http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.aprs.net.au/mailman/listinfo/ozaprs</a></blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>