On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, you wrote:
>Geez, with this much hostility, I'm forced to believe an APRSer stole his
>wife! On behalf of all the APRS-studs out there I apologize to James. To
>all the less hostile members of this list, I apologize for the off-topic
>post, but I feel I must defend APRS...
Why don't you people let Bruninga defend HIMSELF?
>>We Want Our Own 2m Channel, damn any other mode....
>>
>By this I assume that KG7FU is referring to the APRS QSY to 144.39. I
>could write a few pages on this, and I won't bore you with the messy
>details (I was the co-chair of the TAPR committee on this issue, more
>info at: http://www.tapr.org/aprsqsy/index.html). The reality is APRS had
>a very functional and almost universal channel on 145.79. We were asked
>to move in order to facilitate a world-wide frequency of 145.800 for the
>International Space Station. This move was endorsed by the ARRL, AMSAT,
>and TAPR. The voluntary QSY of thousands of hams for the benfit of
>another group is unprecedented in ham radio, and demonstrates the highest
>ideals of the Amateur Radio Service.
No, acttually Bruninga was asked nearly 9 years ago to impliment tcp/ip or at
least offer source to folks like KA9Q and W0RLI for development of a networked
system. Bob's response was a flat "No, we don't want networking.". As far as
the recent frequency move...true it was based on interference to EU stations
from the MIR downlinks...unfortunately the ARRL, TAPR, AMSAT and others
involved ignored the pleas of the wek signal community to not move into
144.39. They also completely ignored renewed calls to use existing networks by
adding tcp/ip or netrom compatibility.
>Do we deserve a dedicated channel? Well, in the last 8 hours APRServe has
>seen 1642 stations (2534 in 24 hours). These are hams active today,
>occupying a single frequency. Compare that to the hundreds of repeater
>frequencies assigned, most of which are unused at any given time, and
>each pair, when in use, supports a few simultaneous users. Which is
>better utilization of spectrum?
Rediculous analogy. Stick to the APRS facts.
>>We Don't Want to Use Active Networking (IE: NO tcp/ip)...
>>
>Pure ignorance. APRServe links together APRS local networks into a
>seamless whole, with two way directed messaging, and is entirely TCP/IP
>based. As I write this, there are 18 full time internet gateways, (6
>feeding via ham RF TCP/IP links!), and 137 users receiving the data feed,
>many also sending their local RF data to the internet servers. Each day
>the two linked APRServe machines feed 2 - 3 Gigabytes of data to clients.
Who is ignorant? Why is it that APRS needs a single RF channel and absolutely
can not utilize the thousnads of netrom and tcp/ip networks on the air? WTF
does the internet have to do with RF networking? Nothing. As Hank says...you
guys are LLids.
>The reason I'm lurking on this list is I am developing a new server,
>XMLserve, that will run under Linux, and serve as a database and generic
>data interface serving the data as XML.
Good for you! Why don't you put some of the ax.25 kernel hooks in there and
get us APRS that works on our networks, not the internet?
>I admit I'm biased, but this sure seems like people in APRS are embracing
>TCP in a big way!
See above. Not RF tcp/ip.
>
>>We Don't Care About Band Plans Or Efficient Spectrum Use...
>>
>Band plan? 144.39 used to be in a reserved satellite band, but was
>reliquished because it could not be made into a world-wide allocation,
>and as such is worthless as a satellite band. 144.39 is coordinated in
>most areas for APRS use, and in no case has APRS taken the frequency
>without consideration of other users. Many areas delayed their QSY for
>coordination and relocation of other users. The most significant examples
>are Southern California and the Southeast within a few hundred miles of
>Atlanta.
Their are plenty more who have and will not move, simply because it's not
necessary for their application. Nearly all of Oregon is still on the old
channel, except for a few in Portland/Vancouver. The 6 or so high level boxes
covering the majority of the state won't move any time soon.
>Efficient? First, re-read the second paragraph in response to the first
>point. Second, while most packet radio is point to point, or one-to-one,
>APRS is one-to-many. A single transmission results in a position report,
>weather report, or message being received by hundreds of users. That is
>efficient. APRS uses a different paradigm than other packet radio...that
>doesn't make it less valid, or deserving of sarcastic remarks.
Think long and hard about that. Why is this "closed" network not talking to
other RF networks? Why did Bob shoo away netrom and tcp/ip for RF so many
years ago?
>>We Don't Care About Technical Issues, Just As Long As We Get Our Way.
>>
>I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions on this one...
Read Bob's erroneous and full-of-crap paper on satellite dowlinking on the
AMSAT pages and decide for yourself. When confronted about his technical
errors, he replied with some mumbo-jumbo about "end-users not knowing anything
technical so who cares anyway?".
>Again, I appologize for the off-topic post, but some things needed to be
>said. Any other comments should be sent direct to me or on one of the
>APRS mailing lists.
BS The comments made to the linux-hams list are appropriate to get a reply
there. I never said that APRS wasn't useful, cute, fun or worthwhile. Matter
of fact, I helped facilitate one of the most used APRS stations in Oregon at
3400' atop Prairie Peak and even replaced the antenna after an ice storm
destroyed it. While a member of the ARRL Spectrum Committee, I asked APRS
stations owners in the W7 district to report on users, sites and channel
loading. ALL refused to participate. What does that tell you about the APRS
mentality?
WTF is an APRS-stud anyway?
-------------------------------
James S. Kaplan KG7FU
Eugene Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rio.com/~kg7fu
Have YOU tried Linux today?
NAR# 74764
--------------------------------
