[aprssig] APRS low-power-local ALT input channel
AE5PL Lists
HamLists at ametx.com
Sat Sep 25 07:30:51 EDT 2004
No. Bob is again trying to justify the elimination of any type of
collision avoidance based on the faulty premise that if it is not 100%
effective, then don't do it. Ground level users are in a combination
aloha/CSMA network. In fact, in a local operation (which is what we are
talking about), ground based devices do see a high percentage of other
transmitted packets (the need here is not to be able to decode those
packets, but to see the signals). I stand by my statement: it is bad
operating practice to transmit without listening first to prevent
intentional interference on a shared channel. It is bad data network
design to use a shared channel with no attempt to have a collision
avoidance method.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Herrmann
> Posted At: Saturday, September 25, 2004 3:07 AM
> Subject: RE: [aprssig] APRS low-power-local ALT input channel
>
> At 11:50 PM 9/24/2004 -0400, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> >Ah, that is a common missunderstanding.
> >When any system uses HIGH site repeaters to serve many ground
>
> While it's true that the ground level users are in an aloha
> network it isn't true that the high site repeaters are. They
> are truly in a CSMA network. I think what Pete was getting at
> is that we need to be building those high site cross-channel
> digipeaters so that they check for busy before they transfer
> the packets from the alternate network to the main
> 144.39 network.
>
> Pete - Is that where you were going?
More information about the aprssig
mailing list