[aprssig] MGATES for IS-Mobiles

Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists hamlists at ametx.com
Tue Dec 27 14:39:44 EST 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Bruninga
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:49 PM
> We have got to find a way to accept these mobile hams into the APRS-RF
> network as long as they do not generate any more traffic than a similar
> mobile on RF would generate.  Remember, our objective for the last several
> years for APRS communicating is "any ham device, any time to be able to
> communicate with any other ham with any other wireless device".  This goal
> was developed for TEXTING, but we also need to see where the other guy is.
> I know this is already provided for under existing architecture, but the
> "courtesy packet" is very unreliable since it is only TXed once every 30
> minutes.

WHY?  Why are they any different than the thousands of other Internet-only connected clients?  And why do you believe that the local IGate operators must gate to RF any packets beyond the long-established RF messaging support?  You see where the other guy is today if they communicate with (send an APRS message to) an RF station.  Otherwise, we (those of us on RF) DON'T need to see where someone is if they are only on the Internet.

I for one will not relinquish any type of control nor put into an IGate software any type of throttling as proposed since it puts in jeopardy both the APRS-IS and the RF networks.  As I said before, your intent is noble, the implementations proposed are not.  If they can afford a smartphone with a data plan, they can afford an HT and operate on RF just like the rest of us.  There is nothing special about someone who wants to dictate to another ham that their posits are "special" and deserve to be on their RF channel regardless of that other ham's opinions.

I recommend you drop this concept.  You were right to begin with: only messages addressed to a "local" RF station and associated posits get gated to RF.  All other packets are ignored unless specifically enabled by the IGate operator.  No one should ever assume that just because they have a broken TOCALL (your suggestion causes us to not know what software is generating the packets and it does not adhere to your TOCALL standards), broken path (TCPIP* is the only "digi" allowed in the path on APRS-IS), or other abomination.  No amateur radio operator in the US can mandate to another amateur radio operator that they must transmit and that is what you are proposing.  An IGate operator makes a conscious choice regarding gating messages to RF or not (if not, they don't transmit from their IGate).  However, what you and the rest are proposing is that any "local" (easy to be "local" anywhere by setting a fixed position a long way from where you are) smartphone owner mandates that their packets get transmitted by another ham's station.


Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete at ae5pl dot net

More information about the aprssig mailing list