[aprssig] RE: IGate Abuse (Firenet Data)
HamLists at ametx.com
Sun Mar 6 07:51:35 CST 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dick at kb7zva.com
> Posted At: Sunday, March 06, 2005 3:52 AM
> Subject: [aprssig] RE: IGate Abuse (Firenet Data)
> Your point is how well Firenet, as a subnet, blends into the
> APRS-IS. That's the tunnel vision I was talking about. The
> program is flawed! APRS is both RF and the Internet.
I never said it "blends into the APRS-IS". Quite the opposite. I said
that the subnet concept they use keeps their data separate from APRS-IS
which it does. It is not flawed as you stated.
> You offer no solution other than saying it's a personal
> problem. Is it possible from your programming skills to
> prevent this data from being seen on RF?
I also did not say it was personal problem. I said the problem you
describe is a local problem. And it is. And no, I cannot keep someone
from gating to RF whatever they feel like, regardless of the source. RF
abuse long predates APRS-IS and APRS with effects that many times far
outreach what you are experiencing. There is a solution, but it is not
in shutting down the Internet or this component of the Internet.
> >If we were to shut something down the instant someone abused
> it, there
> >would be no APRS-IS nor, I dare say, any APRS.
> Dramatic statement, and false assumption. And, not true.
Not false at all. You have a single, local instance where you have a
problem yet your statements are to shutdown the entire Firenet network.
That is dramatic and based on a false assumption.
> APRS-IS. To think that every time a program was being abused,
> I would suggest it be shut down, is incorrect information.
But that is what you are doing here.
> Am I the only person seeing Firenet data on my RF screen? Is
If you are not, so what? Maybe it is being used for amateur purposes
elsewhere, like weather server output is.
> it really OK to force something down my throat I don't want
> to see? I have to see it because some law-enforcement agency
Sometimes, yes. As long as it is within the confines of the law and
good amateur radio practice. I would recommend that if you don't want
to see the objects and they are not causing QRM, invest in software that
filters RF packets. Personally, as stated before, I believe this
particular person's reasoning for transmitting these objects (for direct
non-amateur use) is both against Part 97 and poor amateur radio
practice. But that is an issue with the person and the FCC, not the
subnet concept which I was talking about in my posts.
> think channel buoys, water gages or incorrect WX objects are
> cool. Most locations aren't maintained on a regular basis and
> produce false information.
This is an interesting statement and should be taken up, with
documentation, with the person(s) who generates those objects. I am
sure they would like to know what database you get your information from
so they can properly adjust their feed. Funny, the CW information also
produces false information, can be gated to RF (yes, TCPXX can be
overridden), yet you whole-heartedly endorse that data be carried on
APRS-IS (which I do to, by the way). In our area, CW data would cause a
lot more QRM than Firenet data. Fortunately, we don't have someone
gating it to RF even though they could.
Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net
More information about the aprssig