[aprssig] Why Not "Gate in Vicinity"

[Lawrence LaBranche]

On Dec 26, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:

> * Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists <hamlists at ametx.com> [2011-12-26 18:04]:
>> The difference is simple: messaging is communicating, beaconing is
>> not.
> 
> Both is communicating, even if the message of the latter is only
> "here I am [and you can contact me on this QRG]".

I have to agree with this. I see APRS-IS client as another tool in the Ham's tool box. The Ham may not have a aprs radio, but more and more have laptops, tablets, and smart phones. The nice thing is software based solutions can be updated faster than hardware based solutions. 

For examples, I borrowed a commercial radio for ham repeaters so I would have something. Not even a keypad. It would not go down to 144.390 so I couldn't attach anything to communicate via aprs. Later, I was able to borrow a regular Ham radio. Still wasn't aprs. 

A great deal of Ham Radios are not APRS. Just because they may use an alternative method to beacon which can include their voice freq, doesn't make them spam. 

This past week we traveled down to Disneyland from Eureka. Only six showed up as QSY and tunable. 

APRS is communications of what is going on. Beaconing is communicating where a fellow Ham is. Not allowing IS to RF is breaking communications and APRS potential.

Maybe a subscription based model with rules might be the answer. A reverse igate would be subscribed to rules that would be decided on as a group, and automatically updated in the clients. 

KI6ZQY 73


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20111226/518bf619/attachment.html>