[aprssig] Smart beaconing and the tragedy of the commons

[Earl Needham]

At 02:19 PM 5/24/2007, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>Earl Quoted me as saying:
> >
> > At 10:19 AM 5/23/2007, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> > >Almost every instance of smart beaconing that
> > >I have seen on the air are noteworthy due to
> > >their excessive beaconing.
>
>Wow, now I can see how that was poorly worded and quite
>naturally was missinterpreted by everyone.  I was typing too
>fast to do a careful re-read.

         It isn't you, Bob, it's the "magic of email".  We've 
discussed that before -- it's just way too easy to take someone the 
wrong way when using email.

><snip>
>I hope that everyone can see that my point of view was that the
>-only- time they become "noteworthy" is when the rare one pops
>up with improper settings, and then that one becomes very
>visible and "noteworthy" to eveyrone on the channel.
>
>It is trying to find a way to limit those imporpoer settings
>that was where I was trying to go with this.  Sorry I got
>everyone spun up by my sloppy writing..

         Now THAT is the $64 question -- and it's a tough one.  I 
don't think there IS an answer, at least not on 144.39 using KPC-3's for digis.

         Now, we can dream about moving to 220, 450, or 1.2, or 
somewhere, with incredible high data rates and a different protocol 
(so AX.25 TNC's wouldn't work there) and we can make anything happen 
that we want.  But to do so, we'll have to BOTH QSY to a different 
band (to get away from the current network), AND use a different 
protocol (to keep the same old problems from following along).

         And it won't be cheap OR easy.

         7 3
         Earl

KD5XB -- Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico DM84jk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cw_bugs