[aprssig] APRS QSY
vk2tv at exemail.com.au
Fri Dec 29 18:34:20 CST 2017
A great bit of history. Thanks for posting it and thanks for your
involvement then, and now.
On 30/12/17 11:20, Steve Dimse wrote:
> I've gotten a couple questions about the QSY, leading me to dig back into the archives and thought it might be of interest to the wider community. I can't believe this was going on 20 years ago now. The aprs sig messages for that period are available from TAPR's ftp server in monthly files. The QSY began in October 1997, just after the DCC. If you are curious who the doubters were, this and succeeding months are the place to look
> To put the time in APRS historical perspective, what would become the APRS Internet System, then known as APRServ, was a few months old. It was a PowerMac 7300 on a T1 line at the Miami Museum of Science and had a half dozen IGates scattered around the country. All IGates were one way, I'd release two-way messaging at the 1998 DCC, though we were already messaging over the internet between MacAPRS and WinAPRS clients. MacAPRS was in it's third year, PC users had APRSdos and the two year old WinAPRS; APRS+SA was also on the horizon. APRS was just beginning to get some respect in the wider ham world, for example MFJ was making a data radio crystalled for 145.79. Things were different, to say the least!
> Here is the message that started it all, sent at the end of DCC after a few bar-table sessions between me, Frank Bauer, and the late, great Greg Jones. It is pretty amazing to consider that in a year, by the 1998 DCC, the QSY was complete in most of the country. This really was a key moment in APRS history.
> Steve K4HG
> From k4hg at tapr.org Sun Oct 12 14:48:38 1997
> As many of you know, AMSAT-NA has asked that APRS move its operations off
> 145.79; 144.39 is suggested as a replacement. Like many other APRS users,
> my visceral reaction was no way, we were there first, we need the single
> nationwide channel, etc. In order to foster understanding between the two
> groups, Frank Bauer, the AMSAT-NA Vice President of Manned Space
> Operations, submitted a paper to the Digital Communication Conference.
> Since I was organizing the Friday APRS seminar, the paper was forwarded
> to me. In a nutshell, the paper talks about why manned space ham
> operation is important, why they also need a single frequency, and why
> 145.80 was virtually the only choice left to them. He closed by
> suggesting a compromise, but provided no specific offers.
> I though about that a while, and decided to see how serious he and
> AMSAT-NA were about a compromise. I looked at the old SIG messages
> talking about a move, and compiled the objections, proposed a compromise.
> I was pleasantly surprised: Frank upped the ante and is proposing an
> APRS/Manned Space Alliance. I'll list the objections below, and how we
> address them.
> ***Begin Disclaimer
> I want it to be clear I do not feel that I am "negotiating" on behalf of
> all APRS users. I have made it clear to Frank that APRS has no single
> spokesman, (if some proposed I be named APRS Vice President of Frequency
> Selection I'd run very far, very fast) and that APRS functions as
> controlled anarchy more than anything else. Likewise, this offer has not
> been approved by AMSAT, TAPR, or ARRL. I am making a proposal to APRS
> users, and hope to foster discussion and to reach a consensus. No deal
> has been struck, nothing is written in stone. I am posting this to inform
> everyone of the possibility of compromise and to hear your comments.
> ***End Disclaimer
> 1. "APRS was there first". True enough, and no way to compromise on
> this...APRS moves, no halfway solution is possible.
> 2. "MIR is dying, why bother". MIR will indeed be abandoned soon, likely
> before we can implement this proposal. This isn't about MIR, it is about
> the International Space Station (ISS), which hopefully begins
> construction next year. On Friday it was announced, at the DCC APRS
> Seminar, that Amateur Radio has been officially manifested by NASA for
> ISS. Now you know before the die-hard AMSAT guys know...cool, huh? Frank
> showed some nice drawings of the ham pallet, with exchangeable modules.
> Very very cool. You should have been there!
> 3. "APRS has not been welcomed on the space assets", or is "considered a
> second class citizen". This was voiced by several people when the subject
> has come up in the past, but is not really true. Yes, we were told to
> stay away from MIR, but this is not run by AMSAT-NA. On the other hand,
> SPRE and STS-72 were experiments where APRS was specifically encouraged.
> In any case, to allay fears, we will ask AMSAT-NA, TAPR, and ARRL to
> officially support any specific agreement we reach, and to acknowledge
> that both manned space ops and APRS are vital and exciting modes of ham
> radio that provide benefits to ham radio in general and the public at
> large. Furthermore, I asked for a guarantee of APRS experimentation and
> operation on future digital satellites, Phase 3D, and ISS. Frank provided
> his personal guarantee that APRS will be allowed on ISS (yes, we have it
> on tape), and he will work to get AMSAT-NA to commit to the same on other
> hardware, but of course that is not within his personal purview.
> 4. "Why should I pay to move my digi?" True enough. For most of us, a
> change will be a simple matter of turning a dial. The cost is born
> disproportionately by digi owners, who may need replace not just
> crystals, but radios, cavities, and antennas as well, since many use
> commercial equipment and may not be tunable that low. I proposed an
> APRS-QSY fund, most likely administered by TAPR, that will reimburse digi
> owners for their expense. I pledged $300 for the fund, and challenged
> Frank to match me, which he did. We will solicit funds from the AMSAT-NA
> and TAPR membership as well as the general APRS and ham communities.
> Commercial entities will also be approached, both for cash and discounts
> on equipment. Details of this system are many and will be worked out
> before we proceed.
> 5. "I don't want to go through coordinating another frequency". How many
> people are on 144.39? No one knows, but not too many. Until recently it
> was an AMSAT weak signal band. If there are some local users, perhaps
> they can be advised of the situation and the need for us to move, and
> even included in the reimbursement program. Also, after rereading the FCC
> rules at Greg Jones' suggestion, I find he is right, simplex operations
> do not require, and do not receive priority by, frequency coordination.
> If you have a coordinating body that handles digital simplex systems,
> then work with them, but for the most part, just get on the frequency.
> So where do we go from here?
> 1. Let's hear comments and suggestions. Please try to stay constructive.
> 2. Listen on 144.39...if you hear nothing, and you agree with the
> proposal, put up a beacon explaining our plans. Besides establishing our
> use of the channel, it will also draw out any other users of the channel
> so we can talk with them.
> 3. If you have a digi that will need money for QSY, figure out what you
> need and what it will cost, we plan to set up a WWW database for the
> dissemination of the info.
> 4. For those in Northern California, can anyone put me in touch with
> someone active on the PBBS system running on 145.79 in the Bay Area? They
> need to be involved in this as well.
> I think this is a great opportunity for APRS to gain visibility and
> respectability, not to mention a true nationwide channel which we can
> share with Canada. It also has the potential to make us look very selfish
> if we don't compromise. Please think about this seriously, and if you
> don't like it, try to come up with constructive alternatives.
> Steve Dimse K4HG
> k4hg at tapr.org
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aprssig