<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Courier New, courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28291">It is best to do independent research first. Spit-balling a frequency before doing that is full of problems.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28363"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28376">Here is an approach that establishes availability quite authoritatively...<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28224"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28182">First, build a coalition of like-minded people who are both motivated and willing to put in some work. If that can't be done, stop. ;-)<br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28409"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28415">Check documentation of repeater councils across the country...even if you think you are choosing a frequency in the "simplex sub-band". <br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28277"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28278">One crucial and authoritative step is to setup automated monitoring stations on a desired frequency ... to monitor 24/7/365. Yep, for a year. You may find that operation on a given frequency occurs at "non standard" (to you) times of the day and year.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28336"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28349">Another is to "test fly" the frequency AFTER the aforementioned step...across the country. Setup operations at altitude and be ready-willing-able to cease operations if QRM occurs (there are plenty of simplex nets out there).</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28528"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28534">There is more...but to Steve's point earlier...it takes dedication, effort, leadership and some luck.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28535"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28536">Best regards,</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28537">Ev, W2EV</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28539"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28109"><span></span></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28110"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28115" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: Courier New, courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28114"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28113"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28112"> <font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28111" size="2" face="Arial"> <hr id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1485429166772_28129" size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Greg D <ko6th.greg@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig@tapr.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:58 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [aprssig] 2 Port Digitpeater was: APRS UHF freq? (9600 baud)<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"><br>+1 <br clear="none"><br clear="none">How about 223.60, if nothing else, to start the discussion? I see<br clear="none">references to this as a backbone frequency for packet, mostly on maps<br clear="none">from the late 1990's. Time for use by APRS, or are the BBS nodes still<br clear="none">active there? Don't want one backbone use to swamp the other.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Greg KO6TH<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="yqt8397423365" id="yqtfd62922"><br clear="none">Peter Laws N5UWY wrote:<br clear="none">> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Bob Mueller <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:bob@funautical.com" href="mailto:bob@funautical.com">bob@funautical.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">>> I also think 220 is a good place for APRS. Since there is hardly any other<br clear="none">>> activity on that band.<br clear="none">> 219-220 MHz is begging for activity ... at least for point-to-point ...<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">aprssig mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org" href="mailto:aprssig@tapr.org">aprssig@tapr.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig" target="_blank">http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig</a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>