[aprssig] Txt messaging

[Greg D]

I'm pretty sure that the design of APRS and APRSIS is such that the
iGates you hear, and that hear you, all run in parallel.  If so, and
presuming that you're not so equidistant between an Rx-only and an Rx-Tx
iGate that the two signals collide with no winner, I think you should
still be able to use the full service iGate without needing to
specifically eliminate the others.  Bob can correct me on this...

The thing is, it's quite easy to set up a full-service iGate.  APRSIS32
software is free and provides this capability out of the box, given any
of a number of hardware or software (sound card) TNCs.  A single
check-box to enable the transmit side is all it takes.  The problem is
that an iGate is not covered under the "safe harbor" laws, meaning if
some license-risking traffic traverses your iGate, even through no fault
of your own, it's your license that is at stake.  I ran an Rx-only iGate
for some time, monitoring and logging the traffic, before enabling the
transmit side.  I still log everything that gets transmitted.  I don't
fantasize that it provides me a bullet-proof legal defense, but at least
mentally it gives me some comfort in knowing what is going on. 
Certainly this approach is situation and region dependent, and not meant
to be advice for anyone else.

Fingers crossed,

Greg  KO6TH


Kenneth Finnegan wrote:
> Can someone explain to me how Rx-only I-gates are crippling near-by RF-gates?
>
> Sure, Rx-only I-gates aren't as good as if a full RF-gate is installed
> in the same location, but how is shutting them down an improvement for
> the APRS network? All Rx-only I-gates do is improve the reliability of
> RF-to-IS traffic (include message acks and replies).
>
> If an area only has Rx-only I-gate coverage, turning off those I-gates
> doesn't fix anything, it just breaks every other use of APRS which
> relies on RF-to-IS gating that isn't layer 4 APRS messaging.
> --
> Kenneth Finnegan, W6KWF
> http://blog.thelifeofkenneth.com/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:14 AM, . <groups.0acf at headquarters.earth> wrote:
>> I agree with this.
>>
>> And as rx-only igates continue to proliferate and degrade the network we need a mechanism to deal with this.
>>
>> Perhaps something (if it already doesn't exist, that I'm aware of) that can be put in one's path to avoid or route around rx-only igates. Something that indicates that you only want your packet processed by a full-service igate and ignored by others.
>>
>> Jeff
>> N5TEV
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Txt messaging
>> From: Randy Love <rlove31 at gmail.com>
>>
>> <soapbox>
>>
>> IMHO, one-way igates are a main enabler of the 'APRS is just a vehicle tracking system' mentality.
>>
>> It is so much more, but when anyone can slap an RX-only igate up for absolutely NOTHING, and it competes with a full-service igate in the same area and cripples it, you're just hurting the system.
>>
>> </soapbox>
>>
>> Randy
>> WF5X
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig