[aprssig] Future Concept for APRS

[Bob Bruninga]

> ... I have some thoughts...
> ... I propose ... digipeater... intelligence
> ... local area "mapped"... define spatial 
> rules... they could...  make joint decisions


All Excellent ideas if one were designing a commercial system with a business model and a service one wanted to define and deliver.  But impossible in a flexible amateur network:

1) It takes a decade for some sysops to make any changes even if the hardware only costs $100

2) There are violent disagreements on what is the purpose of APRS, vehicle tracking? Messaging? SAR? Weather? Skywarn?
Internet extension?  As a result, any "intelligence" or "rules" will have as many *violent* disagrements forced on users based only on individual sysop draconian decisions.

3) As a result, APRS will fragment, and become inconsistent everywhere and frustrating.

4) Unlike commericially, there is no mechanism to introduce this on a consistent or even large scale even if all the above matters were magincally resolved.

BOTTOM LINE: Every ham has his own need and use and intentions for using APRS.  ONLY this sender can make the decision ON EACH INDIVISDUAL PACKET HE SENDS as to where he wants it to go.  And I will fight to retain this flexibility and consistency in the network.

IE, I oppose any draconian filtering or traping of packets based on content.  But I am content with the current NATIONAWIDE more or less traping above 2 hops (sometimes 3) because it is CONSISTENTLY applied as part of the overall New-N Paradigm plan.

This does not say that I have any objections to intelligent "enhancements" such as routing a packet with the path of IGATE to the nearest Igate (and no further).  But NOT at the exclusion of other packets, etc...

It is because of the disctructive tendencies of individual sysops in various places to start arbitrarily trapping, modifying, truncating, ignoreing, etc that we came up with the new-N paradigm to give a national consistent system, instead of individual incompatible feifdoms

Or something like that.
Everytime this topic comes up, there will be a firedrill of heated emotions that will burn resources for a week or so.  But I say, if the local 144.39 is overloaded then:
1) Fix the digis that are not New-N compliant
2) Find the users that are not New-N aware
3) Add more low altitude digis, and move the high ones to UHF and add more 2-way IGates in those cells
4) Begin working on a 9600 baud UHF network
5) Work on user education!

Bob, Wb4aPR