[aprssig] New IGate Operator

[Paul Bramscher]

I rarely ever setup IS->RF either, not wanting to use up electricity,
keep my rig too warm, create too much local RF traffic, etc.

I'm not principally opposed to it, though, it would be a sort of an
EchoLinky APRS.  In that realm, numerous internet<->radio permutations
exist as par for the course.

Maybe it would be an interesting alternate RF network, perhaps
standardized on a freq. other than 144.390 though due to noise.  But as
mobile internet becomes more pervasive, this would begin to negate
hypothetical benefits of cross-band repeating, so to speak.

The WX3in1 looks like a pretty interesting device, I'll have to look
more into it.

73, KD0KZE / Paul

On 1/4/2017 10:51 AM, Nagi Punyamurthula wrote:
> I usually stay away from IS->RF forwarding.  APRS was (I would say still
> is IMHO) originally intended to enable simple packet ops for the RF
> traffic.  The IS stack came into picture to enable reporting on the
> front end visualization. If a source station originated from TCP/IP
> (IS), leave it there – since the source station’s intent is not so much
> for letting RF know, but, to let other TCP/IP users know via
> visualization tools such as aprs.fi.
> 
>  
> 
> Pete, fyi, I have been using the Microsat’s Wx3in1 Plus and Mini for a
> few years now (for local APRS WIDE digipeater / iGate and also for my
> sGate ops as igate) – I agree, they’re great products. I am happy to
> assist w/ any settings related questions you might have. Best wishes
> 
>  
> 
> 73, N0AGI-Nagi
> 
> http://N0AGI.com/
> 
> http://call.n0agi.com/
> 
> http://arissdash.n0agi.com/
> 
> http://MNDMR.net/
> 
> http://services.n0agi.com/
> 
> http://cubes.n0agi.com/
> 
> http://MNMesh.net/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*aprssig [mailto:aprssig-bounces at tapr.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee Bengston
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:27 PM
> *To:* TAPR APRS Mailing List <aprssig at tapr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [aprssig] New IGate Operator
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Jan 3, 2017 1:08 PM, "Jason KG4WSV" <kg4wsv at gmail.com
> <mailto:kg4wsv at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>      
> 
>     On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jim Conrad <jjc at oceanviewcom.com
>     <mailto:jjc at oceanviewcom.com>> wrote:
> 
>      
> 
>         My thought process is that positions no matter the source of
>         actual hams (not objects) should be reflected on RF which
>         provides a coherent picture for the RF stations.
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
>     IMO you're sort of contradicting yourself.  How does giving a
>     picture of hams on cell/IP give you a picture of RF?  It doesn't. 
>     It's noise. If they're not on RF, then they don't need to be on RF.
> 
>  
> 
> Actually he referred to providing a picture for RF stations as opposed
> to a picture of RF.  I can see the benefit with respect to messaging.
> Someone on RF could see someone on a phone, and send them a message.
> 
>  
> 
> There was a bug in AprsDroid a while back (now fixed as far as I know)
> that resulted in stations sending positions very rapidly, so there is
> the risk of gating an Android device running an old version.
> 
>  
> 
> IMO it all depends on RF traffic in a local area. If it's very low, it
> should be OK to RF gate the phones, especially with rate limiting
> functionality in the Igate. How low is low - yeah, it's subjective.
> Whether the device in question can do it is really a question for the
> maker of that device - does it have its own mailing list?
> 
>      
> 
>     Now for non-APRS RF resources that may benefit by being announced on
>     APRS, which what you may be headed toward, look at Bob's info
>     here: http://www.aprs.org/localinfo.html
> 
>  
> 
> I have to admit I haven't looked at that yet; thanks for sharing.  Off
> to take a look.
> 
>  
> 
> Lee - K5DAT 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>