On 3/30/99 3:49 PM Jeff King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>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".
>
The message I responded to was from an Austrailian ham, complaining that
144.39 was in their weak signal band, even though it is not within the
weak signal band in the US.
>Correct me if I am wrong, but typical VHF coverage ranges are line
>of sight, not continent wide.
>
Yes, but the idea is that each digi is within line of sight of each
other, forming a continuous network. That there are holes is inevitable,
but the goal is still one single link. Right now you can drive from
Atlanta to Boston without ever being out of range of a digipeater and
internet gateway on 144.39.
>So tell me why you think a continent wide frequency allocation is
>not *technically* unsound as you stated?
>
I did not state a continent wide frequency allocation was unsound. I said
a worldwide allocation was unnecessary. Big difference!
>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).
>
APRS is completely different from a BBS system. APRS is a system based on
a one-to-many paradigm. All stations monitor and plot all transmissions.
As a vehicle drives anywhere in the country, his signal is automatically
picked up by the nearest digi, and relayed to a few others nearby. If an
Internet gateway is nearby, then it can be seen by anyone in the country.
The system automatically forwards messages to him from anywhere in the
country. The driver does not need to keep consulting a frequency list and
fiddling with the radio, or change the digipeater callsigns.
Steve K4HG
