| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.06.04 23:50l 647 Lines 24520 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3497-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Jun 15, 1/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040619/2049Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:26235 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3497-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Tuesday, June 15, 2004.
1. Updated OZ APRS web site
2. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
3. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
4. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
5. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
6. Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
7. Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
8. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
9. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
10. Re[3]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
11. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
12. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
13. So how about a new network on 70cm?
14. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
15. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
16. APRS Satellite 2 weeks to go. Need launch funds
17. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
18. Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
19. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
20. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
21. RE: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
22. Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
23. Alinco beacons
24. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
25. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
26. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
27. Re[2]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
28. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
29. RE: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
30. Re[2]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
31. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
32. RE: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
33. RE: Alinco beacons
34. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
35. Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
36. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
37. Re[3]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
38. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
39. RE: Re[3]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
40. Re[2]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
41. Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
42. Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
43. Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
44. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
45. VKMAIL
46. Re[3]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
47. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
48 was: Kenwood APRS radio
54. Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles
55. Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
56. RE: Re[4]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS autom obiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
57. RE: Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
58. Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
59. emergency care package
60. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
61. Re: UI-Network, not on 2m? Yeah, and monkeys might fly outta.... (was
Trains, planes, and APRS)
62. MFJ-1270B schematic
63. Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
64. Re[6]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS autom obiles. was: Kenwood
APRS radio
65. Re: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
66. Re[6]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
67. Re[5]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
68. Re: Re[4]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APR S
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
69. Re: emergency care package
70. Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
71. Re[2]: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS re[2]: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
76. RE: Re[2]: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
77. RE: Trains, planes and APRS autom obiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
78. Re: Re[5]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
79. RE: Re[2]: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
80. Re: Re[5]: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS
automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
81. RE: Re[2]: Re[4]: Trains, planes and APRS automobil es. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Updated OZ APRS web site
From: "Andrew Rich" <vk4tec@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:40:20 +1000
X-Message-Number: 1
http://www.tech-software.net/aprs.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rich (VK4TEC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:10:41 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2
EN> Isn't that what we WANT? Surely we're not going to stay at 1200
EN> BPS forever?
I'm pretty sure they had 19.2k backbone links in mind, not even 9.6k baud
stuff. I vaguely remember point to point and backbone being thrown in
there. There were also power limitations, and some ridiculous coordination
hoops that needed to be jumped through.
I can't say I have ever actually SEEN any gear for 219MHZ anyway.
EN> Sure is. Too bad, too. But there is hope -- all you have to do
EN> is look around for equipment that people quit using when the bottom 2/3 of
EN> the band was reallocated to -- uh -- who? I haven't been able to hear
EN> anybody on it...
I think 220 to 222 was limited to using ACSB.. I havent played with ACSB,
so I dunno how well it would work with fading, etc, for mobiles.
Besides, if no one ever used it, kinda hard to find surplus gear. :)
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager@tamu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:02:31 -0500
X-Message-Number: 3
Is this a really bad time to note that there IS a Micor mod for the 220
band floating around? Try a Google search using these keywords:
'motorola micor modification 220'
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@tamu.edu
Network Engineering -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578
Page: 979.228.0173
Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Earl Needham <needhame1@plateautel.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:17:28 -0700
X-Message-Number: 4
At 12:10 AM 6/15/2004, Danny wrote:
>EN> Isn't that what we WANT? Surely we're not going to stay at 1200
>EN> BPS forever?
>
>I'm pretty sure they had 19.2k backbone links in mind, not even 9.6k baud
>stuff. I vaguely remember point to point and backbone being thrown in
>there. There were also power limitations, and some ridiculous
>coordination hoops that needed to be jumped through.
>
>I can't say I have ever actually SEEN any gear for 219MHZ anyway.
You may be right on the point-to-point stuff. But as for equipment for 219
MHz, it sure seems reasonable to me that any gear for the old 220-225 band,
that has a 2-meter sibling, should have an out-of-band mod somewhere that
would get it down to 219. Perhaps not a published mod, but if diodes set
the range, then we should be able to come up with something.
Earl
Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico DM84jk
SETI@Home: 11623WU/7.54yrs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Sean Jewett <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:56:19 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 5
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote:
>Is this a really bad time to note that there IS a Micor mod for the 220
>band floating around? Try a Google search using these keywords:
>'motorola micor modification 220'
I've looked at this several times before. The question is, is it worth
it? I've got a couple of Micors sitting around that I'd love to use for
something like this.
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:58:38 -0400
X-Message-Number: 6
Just got done spending some time googling for 219MHZ stuff.
Seems like there are a lot of coordination hassles with it.
I dont know what you would gain running APRS (even backbone links) on
219MHZ that you couldnt do in the standard 222-225 MHZ allocation, and
without the need for coordination hassles or modding radios.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Earl Needham <needhame1@plateautel.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:03:13 -0700
X-Message-Number: 7
At 07:58 AM 6/15/2004, Danny wrote:
>Just got done spending some time googling for 219MHZ stuff.
>
>Seems like there are a lot of coordination hassles with it.
>
>I dont know what you would gain running APRS (even backbone links) on
>219MHZ that you couldnt do in the standard 222-225 MHZ allocation, and
>withou or
even 56k may be `overdreaming'.
I think 9600 would be a VAST improvement.
The kenwoods will do 9600 won't they? Hey, thats 38% of the userbase ready
to go! Grantid, that takes us away from our 220 discussion, but opens up a
440 discussion that gives us (1) higher speed and (2) co-location with the
existing 144.390 equipment as it's phased out.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:55:05 -0400
X-Message-Number: 11
We had an extensive 220 backbone here. From what I saw and heard at the
time, I got the impression that the georgia-carolina area was an exception.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:21:18 -0700
X-Message-Number: 12
>moving to another frequency won't really help, UNLESS we also go to a
>higher BPS.
Just cranking up the speed isn't going to help that much, though. I'd like
to see 9.6k used to transmit wider APRS streams for those clients that can
handle it, but I can't see any real advantage to running 9.6k for mobile
trackers. The transmission time isn't significantly less, and it's more
susceptible to errors.
Scott
N1VG
---------------------------------------------------------adily
available for this speed than any faster speed.
70cm/9600 is readily available on a number of current-generation radios
(even, dare I say, the K word?).
And of course radio/antenna-wise, 70cm can peacefully co-exist with 2m
equipment.
Should work out-of-the box on the K* radios, at least for the subset of
APRS that they understand, right?
Issues:
9600 is a bit trickier than 1200 for mobile, but I'm sure we could make
it work.
Can't wire 9600 to the mic/speaker jacks, but many current rigs support
the defacto standard 6-pin mini-din, right?
Many rigs (mostly the synthesized ones, right?) don't really have a
better key-up-to-key-down time at 9600 than 1200, but so what? It's no
worse, and it's a step in the right direction. I presume this is
because our packets are very short, and the keyed time is dominated by
the PLL-lockup delay regardless of bit rate.
Some clients may have "issues" with non-APRS packets (or even some
non-vanilla but APRS-compliant packets) - fix them!
David, ky7dr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:06:16 -0700
X-Message-Number: 14
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
>>moving to another frequency won't really help, UNLESS we also go to a
>>higher BPS.
>
>Just cranking up the speed isn't going to help that much, though. I'd like
>to see 9.6k used to transmit wider APRS streams for those clients that can
>handle it, but I can't see any real advantage to running 9.6k for mobile
>trackers. The transmission time isn't significantly less, and it's more
>susceptible to errors.
>
>Scott
>N1VG
I think there would be more disadvantages than advantages at 9k6. I had my
share of them in the past.
2k4 would be pretty cool and do-able in most radios.
If you do a high speed backbone, it would be a waste to limit it to
APRS.....keep the backbone wide open and let it carry whatever!!!
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:29:28 -0400
X-Message-Number: 15
I was drafting a post mentioning 2400 baud, but I expected `too slow'
replies in the hundreds. It's better than what we have and easy to
implement. Hmm..
<flame suit on and zippered tight>
Ok, we HATE the internet. It's not going to be there when the &%$% hits the
fan, and it's not ham radio..
Wait..
APRS-IS is the high speed backbone we can only DREAM about on RF. It's
CHEAP, easy to implement, and worldwide!
Everytime an APRS backbone discussion comes up, it mentions all the things
we are already doing with APRS-IS, and at speeds tens and hundreds of times
faster than anything implemented so far.
My best friend is a paranoid deputy EMA director. He screams the same `The
internet wont be there when I need it' stuff. How do we know it WONT? How
do we know this earth shattering event wont take out the towers of the RF
backbone and leave everything else intact?
I just havent seen a compelling argument in the years since APRS-IS took
off (and cheap home high speed internet) that makes me all dizzy for an
APRS RF backbone.
Ok, it's not Ham Radio, it's the internet.. and?
</awaiting the flames>
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS Satellite 2 weeks to go. Need launch funds
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:42:50 -0400
X-Message-Number: 16
can someone remind me again the paypal method of contributions. My finances
have finally loosened up and want to make another contribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was: Kenwood APRS
radio
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:47:05 -0700
X-Message-Number: 17
>My best friend is a paranoid deputy EMA director. He screams the same
>"The internet wont be there when I need it" stuff. How do we know it WONT?
>How do we know this earth shattering event wont take out the towers of the
>RF backbone and leave everything else intact?
Well, the 6.5 magnitude San Simeon quake last December took out my DSL for
awhile... most likely due to power outages. I had power to the IGate rack,
but apparently my ISP's backup power isn't as reliable. A since the vast
majority of IGates are probably on DSL or cable, this is likely to be a
common situation. I really wouldn't be surprised if the ISP doesn't have
ANY backup power, at least for their local equipment. Since most home users
aren't going to have backup power of their own, they're not going to be
demanding Internet service during a power outage, are they?
My new IGate test box has been running on solar/battery power for 9 days
now, but it doesn't do me a dang bit of good without something to plug in
to.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:06:00 -0400
X-Message-Number: 18
What are the chances that 4 or 5 IGATES in range of a standard DIGI are
going to lose internet connectivity?
If you lose that single DIGI, you canltimately Bellsouth lines for the last mile.
At one point I was starting to work on getting PPP up and running on my
linux floppy igate so those people that wanted to do dialin could. I should
probably get that going for diaster purposes. (todo list just keeps
increasing).
>It's cheap and easy to set up multiple IGATES in a region. Its NOT
>cheap or easy to set up say 4 or 5 backbone sites in a region.
Agreed. That's part of the reason why I put together the linux floppy igate
was to make deployment that much easier (why maintain an entire install of
linux when you have just what you need).
Note, our central servers are running full installs of linux.
>Besides that, RF backbones are still range limited. An IGATE is an
>instant worldwide backbone.
An igate is great because it allows people to participate a little more
proactively.
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:36:42 -0700
X-Message-Number: 20
>What are the chances that 4 or 5 IGATES in range of a standard DIGI are
>going to lose internet connectivity?
4 or 5 IGates in range of a single digi? Not around here. I think it's
more like two digis to the IGate in these parts. And if they are that
close, I'd say the chances are fairly good. I think you overestimate the
survivability of commercial ISPs.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: "Wilson G. Hein" <wilson.hein@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:38:32 -0400
X-Message-Number: 21
Redundancy - what is wrong with both igates and backbones?
73, Wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: Danny <danny@messano.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:58:31 -0400
X-Message-Number: 22
Theres no one else that COULD run an IGATE? With there being internet in
more homes than cable TV now, i'd be inclined to think there are a lot more
out there with connectivity than you think.
I'm not so sure you are underestimating the survivability of the phone
system. Grantid, relying on a cable or DSL provider can be a mixed bag.
What about dialup? With a dialup IGATE you now have at least a 28.8k
backbone.
Danny
KE4RAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Alinco beacons
From: Bill Bird <billbird@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:16:34 -0500
X-Message-Number: 23
Tim,
If you use an UNPROTO path like: BEACON VIA WIDE,WIDE
you should be able to put in your BTEXT field the text which an APRS client
program would use as your position packet. This will include formatted
information as to position, icon, power, etc. Once transmitted, your icon
will show up in the correct position on others' maps. By using "BEACON" in
your unproto hopefully people will realize you are a beacon only and not
running an aprs client so you will not respond to messages. Use the BEACON
command to control the frequency of your transmissions - about once an hour
for a fixed location. I don't have the Alinco DR-135 but use this for my
other TNC's if I don't have an APRS client program available. I will also
paste a similar packet into a terminal program and send it up to the
International Space Station for retransmission back to earth.
73,
Bill Bird
KG0YJ
Chesterfield, MO
www.billbird.com
>Subject: Alinco beacons
>From: Tim Cwik <tcwik@stnhbr.com>
>
>The Alinco DR-135 (and other TNCs) can send a beacon packet consisting of
>the contents of the BTEXT field in the TNC. Is this packet considered an
>APRS packet and if so, which data format in the spec does it fit into?
>
>Thanks
>Tim N2LTQ
>
>--
>Tim Cwik
>tcwik@stnhbr.com spamtrap: tjc123@stnhbr.com
>Voice: 609-368-2482 Fax: 609-368-3695
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:18:48 -0400
X-Message-Number: 24
We have 2 IGATEs in a 90 mile radius. Usually that provides enough
redundancy in case the Sparc goes down.
Why not a spread spectrum high speed packet network on 220 for various
purposes? There's gotta be a protocol we could use for this that would be
mobile friendly and whatnot.
--Droo, K1XVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles.
was: Kenwood APRS radio
From: Drew Baxter <droobie@maine.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:19:43 -0400
X-Message-Number: 25
Most Dial-up providers strongly suggest you don't sit on the line 24 hours
a day. :)
--Droo, K1XVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re: Re[2]: Re: Trains, planes and APRS automobiles. was:
Kenwood APRS radio
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:27:53 -0400
X-Message-Number: 26
On 6/15/04 at 11:36 AM Scott Miller <scott@opentrac.org> sent:
>>What are the chances that 4 or 5 IGATES in range of a standard DIGI are
>going to lose internet connectivity?
>
>4 or 5 IGates in range of a single digi? Not around here. I think it's
>more like two digis to the IGate in these parts. And if they are that
>close, I'd say the chances are fairly good. I think you overestimate the
>survivability of commercial ISPs.
Remember almost any home APRS user can become an IGate with the check of a
box. If there aren't 4 or 5 home users within the digi range, the odds are
there isn't going to be a lot of call for APRS service after a disater
anyway.
Of course, the ultimate answer is satellite Internet service. FEMA has
purchased a large number of portable units for this purpose, and any APRS
user that already has satellite internet access need only provide good
backup power to ensure am IGate can remain up after a disaster. This option
provides greater reliability than any RF network solution could...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
