Steve:
I'm sure I'm being nit picky here but I think you either missed my point
or thought I was talking about Australia.
You stated earlier that "There is no need for areas outside of propagation
range to be on the same frequency". You also stated that "the 144.39
allocation is for North America".
Correct me if I am wrong, but typical VHF coverage ranges are line
of sight, not continent wide.
So tell me why you think a continent wide frequency allocation is
not *technically* unsound as you stated?
You might want to consider the "145.01mhz" bbs network in the
late 1980's to put this in perspective. (except in APRS's case it is
worse).
-Jeff
Steve Dimse K4HG wrote:
> On 3/30/99 1:33 PM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >Steve Dimse K4HG wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The 144.39 allocation is for North America only. There is no need for
> >> areas outside propagation range to be on the same frequency. Australia
> >> should set their own policy based on their own needs.
> >
> >Being 144.39 is VHF, and as such its typical propagation range is limited to
> >RF line of sight (which encompasses an area far less then the North
> >American Continent) , are you now suggesting that the TAPR nationwide
> >APRS 144.39 "RF single frequency plan" is technically unsound?
> >
> Not at all. The TAPR plan was for North America only. In Australia, they
> can pick their own frequency appropriate to their bandplan. It really
> doesn't matter if it is 144.39 or not.
>
> Steve K4HG
