Can't wait to see how this "data sharing" transfers over to the MLAT debate,when/if (obviously the later being more appropriate) ever comes into the user domain,as I suggest this will create a whole new perspective on the subject?
To be honest, I can see both sides of the argument.
To some extent,and whilst not wanting to "cross-threads",this week we've seen another useful,accurate,upto date database provider enter the market - however ,like most providers of such info, to be regularly kept up to speed with changes and new additions to the data set, there's a relitavely nominal subscription charge to be paid, which I think is reasonable.
If on the other hand, you're contributing to something by providing information, then it does seem strange to have to subscribe to gain maximum effect from it, by being able to access the network
But........is this actually any different from most other enthusiast run groups, whereby a hell of a lot of members provide relevant information for the use of other subscribers ( for example information as to the current airworthiness of aircraft/spotting logs suggesting changes as to where the aircraft may now reside/new aircraft details etc etc),and still pay for the "privalege"?
Maybe what's needed is a good close look at the cost of joining the network,and being a compulsory provider of data, based on good old supply and demand - as the more people subscribing and sharing then the better coverage would presumably become?
To make it more affordable in the current financial climate would be sensible, and in turn possibly advantageous to subscribers,whilst still providing revenue to AirNav (which after all,let's not forget is what the real reason obviously is ,as to why it's at a price).
