[aprssig] APRS on UHF?

[Bob Bruninga]

> So I'm getting the feeling generally 
> that the only thing that's kept it on 
> the vhf side is that that is where it 
> started and no one has really wanted 
> to change...  That said, is there 
> anything keeping it that way?

Yes, by definition.  If you understand that APRS is supposed to be the single frequency resource for all information about everything going on in ham radio in the local area, then there can only be one channel.

If you dont see it that way, then you are one of the may who have been led to believe that APRS is a one-way vehicle tracking system who's only objective is to get a position report to the internet, and nothing else.  Which is eaxclty the opposite of what APRS was designed to do.

Now, having said that, the use of alternate INPUT frequencies to give locals hivher priority and uncongested input is encouraged.  And I agree with you there, that just very few places have given any effort to that initiative.  But if they want to see "everying in the area" on 144.39, then they should in their own-best-interest move the LOCAL input for local users to another frequency input (still it gets digpieatred back OUT on 144.39 because that is the whole point).

> If local groups picked up the idea of 
> using a frequency... would there be 
> APRS zealots be all over us?  

Not at all.  Haivng alternate inputs to 144.39 digipeaters to separate the LOCAL inputs from the out-of-area QRM is highly recommended.  It fulfils the goals of APRS as the single information resource for everything happening in the local area.  But you still have 144.39 inputs too for the visiting travelers, but the locals who want better performance go into the digis on the back door freq.

Bob, Wb4APR


>I've never understood the connection between zealots and technology, but you should hear
>some of the stuff that's come up because of people using their "own" APRS channel so
>that only people in their group/club/whatever know where to look and can see their traffic..
>
>p
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:08:40 -0800, Scott Miller wrote
>> I've said this before, but I'll say it again... if we implement ANY new 
>> standard frequency for APRS, I *really* think it should include an 
>> intelligent channel access scheme.  At the very least, it should use GPS 
>> time synchronization for slotted ALOHA.
>> 
>> Scott
>> N1VG
>> 
>> Patrick wrote:
>> > A question came to mind today to a couple of us on the way to work...  Why hasn't aprs
>> > standardized on UHF?  Being on the uhf bands would resolve many of the issues for mobile
>> > installations (ie de-sense to other 2m radios, car stereos, etc)...  True the coverage
>> > wouldn't be quite as long distanced, but the uhf bands seem to be a lot less used, and
>> > commercial uhf hardware is available cheaply and in abundance which could be easily
>> > modified for this sort of use...
>> > 
>> > p
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > aprssig mailing list
>> > aprssig at tapr.org
>> > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>> > 
>> >
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>aprssig mailing list
>aprssig at tapr.org
>https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig