[aprssig] Future Concept for APRS

[Bob Bruninga]

>>> ... I propose ... digipeater... intelligence
>>> ... local area "mapped"... define spatial 
>>> rules... they could...  make joint decisions
>>
>> BoB:  All Excellent ideas if one were 
>> designing a commercial system with a 
>> business model and a [specific] service 
>> one wanted to define and deliver.  But 
>> impossible in a flexible amateur network:
>
> Benjamin in Finland: Yes. All those ideas are 
> very reasonable, if there is to be any future 
> for APRS.
>
> Get rid of all last-century hacks, and for 
> Joe's sake, try to start to think at least 
> a teeny-weeny bit professionally.

I admit that European and USA amateur radio differ drastically in mission and intent.  In the USA there is legal support for emergency and public service communications, whereas in Europe (in general) there are no such provisions and amateur radio is more of a competition contest of QSO, and wildly competing individual interests.

> You can spend all your time opposing 
> changes, but let me tell you one
> very simple fact:
>
> It is not going to make our operations 
> any different. This is what you call 
> freedom, I suppose? We will filter, we 
> will restrict, we will take all possible 
> measures to keep our network functional. 

Ah, then you have to nail down exactly what everyone in your network wants.  I guess if all anyone wants is a vehicle tracking system driving cute internet displays, then that is pretty EASY to optimize  (at the loss of flexibiitly for other applications)...

> Remember, it is our network, not yours. 
> We will even write new software if what is 
> currently available is not up to _our_ standards.

I wish I could write new software too, since very few APRS clients meet my expectations...

>> we came up with the new-N paradigm to 
>> give a national consistent system, 
>> instead of individual incompatible feifdoms
>
> Yes. National, not international. Most 
> of the interference up here comes from 
> abroad. From Sweden and from Russia.

I agree, that is a problem.  And depending on the normal cooperation of hams across those borders may or may not need the national solutions.  But that is why I inidicated that the New-N paradigm works as a national system in the USA where there is very little if any "communicatios boarders"...

Are those bothersome packets coming in with hops greater than 2?  If so, then simply implementing the New-N paradigm recommendation of 2 hops in most areas would seem to solve most of the problems.

I do not oppose any "national" solutions to "national" problems.  That is kinda how humanity os organized, so it makes sense to let those boundaries and local problems dictate the action required.

Good luck.
Bob, Wb4APR