[aprssig] RE: IGate Abuse

[AE5PL Lists]

No tunnel vision involved on my part.  The "adverse effects on RF" as
you call them are caused by a single person gating objects to RF which
you don't want to see in your area.  As I stated before, this is a local
problem, not a Firenet problem (and yes, there are other operators
around the world who also "adversely affect" their local RF who have
nothing to do with Firenet).

Firenet has no adverse effect on your RF environment.  Someone who is
gating an excessive number of objects to RF does.  There is a big
difference.  I am sorry that you don't see that difference.  If we were
to shut something down the instant someone abused it, there would be no
APRS-IS nor, I dare say, any APRS.  My statements regarding Firenet
being a well isolated subnet of APRS-IS yet still having full access to
APRS-IS still stands.  Nothing you have posted says anything different.

I do not currently use Firenet although I have at times in the past.  I
am very familiar with how the isolation occurs, which was what I was
talking about before, because they use the server software I wrote.  I
was not referencing the merits nor the detriments of Firenet, only the
networking effects which are IMO correctly implemented.  I am sorry you
have a problem with a local IGate operator.  One operator is not Firenet
nor does a single operator's purported abuse of Firenet justify slamming
the entire network.

Their experiments have been extensive and successfully run.  They
continue to aggregate information into a single data stream for use by
hams and non-hams alike (non-ham use of the data on the Internet is done
all the time, even with APRS-IS data).  To demean the network because of
one, two, or even three people abusing it is tunnel vision.  I would
certainly rather see people try to play together than try to tear down
something just because they can't get along.

This is neither a slam on you nor an endorsement of the other person.  I
have stated before that I believe the other person is in error in
believing that we should be broadcasting information on RF for direct
non-ham consumption.  That said, it was because much of the extra
information which Firenet carries is not of interest to most of the
amateur APRS community that they developed their subnet instead of
forcing that data onto APRS-IS.  That is what a subnet is for and that
was the point of my post.

I know of at least one other subnet in development which will also
provide very beneficial information for a select group of people yet
they also need full access to APRS-IS.  Again, this is what this type of
subnet is good for.

Can subnets be abused?  Of course!  Can APRS-IS data be abused?  Of
course!  Does that mean we should shut them all down?  I think not.

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dick at kb7zva.com
> Posted At: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:41 PM
> Subject: [aprssig] RE: APRS Message Idea (Firenet)
> 
> > Firenet is not having an adverse effect on APRS-IS and that is the 
> > core of my previous comments.
> 
> My point has nothing to do with the implementation of Firenet 
> on the internet portion of APRS. I just took the opportunity 
> to point out the potential for adverse effects on RF.
> 
> That same tunnel vision process got us into trouble before. 
> It works in one place but not the other. Then we run around 
> trying to ban, fix and prevent mistakes.