[aprssig] Weather Stations and Net Neutrality

Steve Dimse steve at dimse.com
Fri Aug 15 14:42:47 EDT 2008

On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Robert Bruninga wrote:

>> The RF network is a very limited resource.
>> ... when you have the opportunity to save some
>> bandwidth, at the cost of only a little extra
>> programming, it is worth it. That was the
>> opinion of everyone (besides Bob) ... when it
>> was proposed...
> It was never worth it.  Positionless weather saves one packet
> per hour but at the expense of unreliable delivery, and delays
> and latency.  Miss one weatherless-postion packet and the next
> almost two hours and a dozen positionless-weather packets are
> useless to the newcomer, the mobile, the person who just
> activated for a storm, etc.

Please once and for all, explain to me why this is ANY different than  
positionless messgaes and positionless status, which you created, and  
positionless telemetry, which requires up to FOUR separate packets  
(position, parameters, bits and data) to be fully useful, and is also  
your creation. Worse, the telemetry bits and parameters can be sent  
from different stations!

I bet you cannot explain this. I've never heard ANY explanation from  
you about it. Prove me wrong! Say something new, not just the same old  
unsubstantiated claims against positionless weather. Tell me exactly  
how weather is different than telemetry, status, and messages!

Steve K4HG

More information about the aprssig mailing list