[aprssig] Why Not "Gate in Vicinity"

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

On 12/28/2011 5:42 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:

>
> This is all doable, with the right technical skills, and the money to 
> have the extra, $60/month for a cellular modem in the vehicle.  In the 
> grand scheme of things, this seems like an excessive investment to 
> accomplish the same thing as the APRS-IS could provide to mobile devices.

Nope, the APRS-IS could NOT provide this to mobile devices and that's 
part of the underlying philosophical difference as I've been following 
this thread of discussion.  The APRS-IS is a TRANSPORT.  Plain and 
simple.  APRS-IS doesn't do anything but shuffle packets from point A to 
point B.  Lots of interconnected servers run by volunteers expending 
there own $unknown/month generate the appearance that the APRS-IS is a 
network.

The only way the APRS-IS has any packets to shuffle is thanks to another 
large group of individuals (2,460 in the last two hours by my count) who 
take personal responsibility and invest another up-front $substantial 
and couple that with $unknown/month to provide gating services between 
RF and -IS.

Those are the individuals you're calling on to provide additional 
features to the APRS-IS.  And right now (but it may change) the software 
they have to do that, within the bounds of the existing APRS-IS 
transport infrastructure), are rudimentary at best, and impossible to 
accomplish the desired goal (selective, throttled -IS to RF gating of 
periodic posits) safely and securely.

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

PS.  Witness the number of IGate operators who, fearing for license 
abuses, turned off or switched their IGates to receive-only mode when 
the APRS-IS password algorithm was published and imagine how that will 
happen again if indiscriminate, uncontrolled (by the IGate operator, at 
least) transmissions are driven by semi-authenticated APRS-IS-only 
stations through some new automated specification.  I personally like 
the Infrastructure that we've developed world wide (yes, I've used it in 
Spain) and don't want to see it jeopardized.  I believe there IS a way 
to do this, but it MUST be left completely to the discretion of the 
IGate operator(s).

PPS.  When's the last time you sent a "Thank You" to an IGate operator 
when driving out of area?  Or conducted an APRS QSO, be it RF to RF or 
via the -IS?