|
Northern Illinois APRS Network Home discussion group for NIAN
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
KA9FLX
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Palos Hills, IL
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: What constitutes proper APRD identification?
|
|
|
Excluding the CW stations which are internet only, I have noticed a growing number of RF based stations with things like a frequency and/or TRAFFIC in the primary ID field of some APRS stations?
I was of the impression that this is not proper/legal station ID. In a few cases, the operator does list his call sign in the beacon text, but that can only be seen by viewing the raw data.
What concerns me more is that the digipeaters seem to pass any station.
If this is not legal identification, is this not also a possible violation by the digi operator?
For example, if a repeater operator allowed non hams to use their repeater, or allowed people to use it without proper identification, would not that repeater operator be in violation of the rules for permitting unlicensed/unidentified traffic through his/her system?
I think anybody who digipeats might have a legitimate concern, yes?
Just Curious.
73,
Bob - KA9FLX |
|
Back to top |
|
|
n9mxq
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 Posts: 160 Location: Belvidere IL
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Most of these are objects. The packet is identified by the sending station.
Code: | N9MXQ>APU25N,WIDE2-2,qAR,W9DRR-10:;444.725/R*040423z4219.41N/08857.59Wm+ 107.2pl Echolink node 291674 WX9MCS |
is one of mine.
As long as the packet transmission is identified, the object can be anything. I post objects for 2 repeaters, and had one for the hamfest when it was in town. Signed Gene Young N9MXQ
"If you can't say something nice, don't say nuttin at all." -Thumper |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KA9FLX
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Palos Hills, IL
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: What constitutes proper APRD identification?
|
|
|
I sort of thought that could be the case, as for those who wish to look beyond the display are able to ascertain who the sender is. But I still think it is a Grey area myself.
IMHO it makes for confusion and is an inconvenience to many operators, legal or not. It forces one, as stated previously, to look at the raw data in order to know who the sender is.
The fact is that this sort of operation is placing non-callsign data in the callsign field of the APRS frame, again forcing one to examine the raw data to determine who the sender is.
Legal or not, I doubt if the originators of APRS intended for the callsign field to be used in this way.
There are standard APRS objects that could designate the site as a voice repeater and many other operational types while still identifying as intended. The beacon text field is there for providing the details such as frequency and access method.
A primary concern is how this can easily be abused by non-hams bootlegging on the the APRS network. If nobody checks, they get away with it. Again, it seems to me the beacon text field is where this sort of information was intended to be.
I suppose unless the APRS community takes a stand on this type of identification and/or it becomes an FCC issue there is no reason not to do it.
We tend to error on the side of caution, so the digipeaters affiliated with our group down here actually filter anything with a (.) or any other non-legitimate characters in the callsign field.
But again, unless you wind up with a violation notice over it, to each his own.
73,
Bob - KA9FLX |
|
Back to top |
|
|
n9mxq
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 Posts: 160 Location: Belvidere IL
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote: | Legal or not, I doubt if the originators of APRS intended for the callsign field to be used in this way.
|
I offer the address to Bob Brunigas website wherein he outlines his ideas on voice repeater, and other, objects: http://aprs.org/localinfo.html
Quote: | A primary concern is how this can easily be abused by non-hams bootlegging on the the APRS network. If nobody checks, they get away with it. |
I've been on APRS for quite a while.. I've never seen a "bootleg" station...Or even heard of anyone seeing one.
Your group can filter what it likes. Objects were designed into the original DOS version of APRS way back in the dark ages and will be around until someone invents a better system. Signed Gene Young N9MXQ
"If you can't say something nice, don't say nuttin at all." -Thumper |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KA9FLX
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Palos Hills, IL
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: What constitutes proper APRD identification?
|
|
|
Was not trying to berate your particular operation in any way, but in light of your comment about Bob Bruninga's paper, I think you missed this part as quoted as follows:
<Quote>
TRANSMITTING THESE OBJECTS: It is very important for all users of APRS to understand the details and purpose of this local info system.
And the most important aspect of this system is the word LOCAL, that is, the packet announcing such a voice repeater is seen DIRECT ONLY in no other area then the local DIRECT coverage area of the repeater itself.
It violates the principle of this concept if these repeater objects are seen in areas where the repeater cannot be immediately worked DIRECT.
# Done right, repeater objects are a great asset to the Traveler/Mobile APRS user with no impact on the network.
# Done wrong, repeater objects are just more QRM and SPAM.
<End Quote>
While it does not address the original legal question, it goes directly to much of my point that such use of the callsign field is, in some cases, nothing more than unnecessary clutter in the system.
I do agree with what Bruninga is saying about these being helpful, and yes, overall having read this it does answer all of my questions.
However, as to the abuse, unless your repeater has coverage for example, down here in the far SW Chicago suburbs from the Rockford area, how is it that the APRS is being relayed by the network this far?
If we cite Mr. Bruninga as you have done, it would seem that your digi settings are incorrect and as he notes, would be an example of doing this wrong.
Based on the Bruninga paper, the digipeaters that do not relay such objects are implementing a correct measure to ensure these stations do not clutter the APRS network, because in the case of a repeater advertisements, they need not be relayed beyond a wide 1-1 , if relayed at all. Bruninga says not to digi them.
Indeed, it can be surmised by Mr. Bruninga's statements, that the relaying of any of these type of objects is unnecessary if not unwanted, as they are, in the case of repeaters or IRLP/EchoLink stations, a local service.
I'm not picking on you directly and there is no malice involved here, just spirited debate, at least on my part. However, one cannot help to point out that within your own response, apparently condemning our filtering of such objects, you have pointed out why your own station is unnecessarily mis-configured and in violation of the spirit of APRS.
In addition to the legal question, which I do feel is resolved. The Bruninga paper also addresses many of my other concerns such as my APRS screens being busied up with stations people in other locations need not see.
About the only exception IMHO would be weather stations and of course mobile trackers. I can see a completely legitimate reason for such operations to be available beyond the local area.
This is not however true for repeater advertisements and/or IRLP/Echolink. As per Mr. Bruninga's paper, these stations should only be seen within the pertinent area of operation.
73,
Bob - KA9FLX |
|
Back to top |
|
|
n9mxq
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 Posts: 160 Location: Belvidere IL
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:57 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, since we can hit 444.725 with an ht from Marengo IL, and mobile as far south as 88 (and I think further now) and the 147.255 covers almost as well, my digipeating the repeater object via a WIDE2-2 would qualify as an area in which the repeaters can be hit direct.
You think I referenced material I hadn't read? Like I said, I've been at this a while now and have seen a lot of changes over the years. Like the widen-n scheme, which beats the hell out of wide,wide,wide,wide.
When it comes right down to it, the packets ARE legally identified, and in my case at least, within the spirit of Bobs original plan. If you see objects that do not conform please feel free to contact the originating station and have them change it. Signed Gene Young N9MXQ
"If you can't say something nice, don't say nuttin at all." -Thumper |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KA9FLX
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Palos Hills, IL
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: What constitutes proper APRD identification?
|
|
|
Gene,
Again, It was not my intention berating you personally here, only commenting on your comments.
As noted in my last reply, I have no issue with the legal aspects of identification as discussed. So that topic is clear.
Yes, I think perhaps you read the paper, but you seem to be missing the point where the use of these objects is concerned.
Bruninga specifically states not to digi these stations in that paper.
However, even if I accept your coverage statement, Your use of Wide 2-2 is unfortunate.
You claim to have been involved with APRS for many years, so I have to ask just how far you think a Wide2-2 will go?
I think you will find your packets are getting relayed well into the surrounding states, far beyond your best dreams of voice system coverage.
I can say for a certainty that your packets are seen NW Indiana, well beyond the range of your voice system. My guess would be you are also well into Iowa and Minnesota as well, and probably the middle if not upper Wisconsin. All well out of range of your repeater, so what is the point in that?
Again, it was not my intention to get personal here, but your attitude seems to be if the FCC cannot touch me about it, I will do whatever I like, general accepted practice be dammed. An what you are doing does go against accepted practice. Specifically, practice recommendations that were pointed out and referenced to me by you!
Given that Bruninga is looked upon as the father of APRS, it seems that you and others like you have chosen to ignore his recommendations as well. You say you read the material, but you openly ignore its guidelines. Wide1-1, maybe. But Wide2-2? Trackers don't even use that long of path?
Unfortunately for the rest of us, you and others like you will continue to flood the network with these unnecessary packets, simply because you can.
I just don't see the point or justification in that approach, never mind the attitude.
73,
Bob - KA9FLX |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot post calendar events in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|