[aprssig] Why Not "Gate in Vicinity"

[Lee Bengston]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jason KG4WSV <kg4wsv at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
>> This basically means that APRS-IS is going to stay a second class
>> network,
>
> Not second class, but APRS-IS is an adjunct to the RF network.  It's a
> very useful tool, but it is not the primary APRS network - that's your
> local RF network.
>
> This is ham _radio_ , not ham internet.
>
>> thus reducing the overall usability of APRS.
>
> No, thus maintaining the usability of the _primary_ APRS network - RF!
>
> IMO, gating IS-only traffic to RF is spam - no matter how
> geographically local it is.  Gating message traffic is awesome.
> Gating WX alter traffic is critical.  Gating satellite passes is fine,
> assuming the local network can handle it.
>
> Gating non-RF "stations" is a waste of bandwidth, IMO.

A user of a phone app for APRS isn't necessarily a non-RF station.
IMO, one of the primary advantages a mobile phone provides as an
alterative method to using APRS is to simplify the RF requirements
when mobile.  And BTW, there's already a GPS in the phone, so no
reason to add another one of those for the radio, either.  So if a
mobile phone user beacons with an RF frequency for QSO's (or 2 because
both sides of his dual band mobile rig are fully available for voice
with no data band requirement), is that really APRS spam on RF if
someone gates it?

Now, I fully realize that typical beacons from phones meant for dumb
tracking have no business being gated to RF.  That gets back to the
QoS concept that's already been brought up.  Currently there's no way
to distinguish what's spam and what isn't.  Being able to distinguish
it may be easier said that done - afer all this isn't Ethernet with
p-bits or IP with DSCP, etc.

Regards,
Lee - K5DAT