Rev: 16-JAN-2012
HF FORWARDING DEFENDED
Rev: 16-JAN-2012
HF FORWARDING DEFENDED
Jerry, N9LYA, also replied, defending HF Forwarding. Here's his reply:
"Phil..
Where the beef.. Really need to tell us your source.
I still think it is a group of individuals hell bent on destroying WL2K..
I see nothing wrong with anything we BBS Sysops do that is unable to be monitored… Its not encrypted nor does it use any codes
that are not copy able by anyone wishing to monitor.
WL2K I know they use Pactor I II III WINMOR RPR and packet… Again.. I see nothing here that should concern anyone…
I think they are a bunch of hot air …. Just jealous about what others do… This is their way to be noticed and just like
bullies in schools they live to cause pain.
If you can PUBLISH anything informative about this … Who is seeking it, who is making waves.. then it would be easier
for us to know the credibility of such a claim….
I appreciate the heads up to all this and keeping me updated…
I would be very interested in what the ARRL and FCC have to say.
Thanks 73 jerry n9lya"
Steve replied to Jerry and sent me a copy:
"Jerry,
Thanks for your note, and yes, you are correct, but that is just a negative aspect of Amateur radio. However, on the flip side,
it is a process called "self-regulation" that must be weighed by those who call the shots. Part 97 is what "the FCC has to say,"
and the ARRL has as many opinions about all this as they do people spouting their doctrine. Most are NOT educated in this subject,
and thus the great diversification in an ARRL response.
Steve"
Steve also sent a copy of his thoughts on this matter:
"All,
"I don't know what prompts this (but I generally can guess who), but the fact is that each individual Control operator, worldwide is responsible for following their rules and regulations. There are several provisions available for each control operator to monitor their traffic on the Winlink 2000 system. As with any other Amateur service, they either do, or they do not. I have not personally seen any off-beat or illegal traffic come over the system in years. Spam is virtually eliminated via the whitelist. Again, it an e-mail or ham call get highjacked, it is up to the individual sysop to stop such efforts of the highjacked until the issue is resolved. We can assist by "lockout," and when we are informed, we do, but it is NOT our responsibility.
"OUT OF THE HAM BANDS, Winlink 2000 may use NSA, PGP or AES encryption, and other means to obscure traffic sent and received, but I have NEVER seen it used on the ham bands, and if anyone does see it, it gets reported to the FCC, immediately, and that station ends its tenure with Winlink 2000 at that time. This is also true of US callsign piracy, which four years ago ran ramped in Europe.
"Be certain that you have absolute proof of what you say here, and be ready to prove it away from home.
"Secondly, in accordance with the FCC ruling regarding Pactor 4, in the opinion of those who determine the protocols used for Winlink 2000, Pactor 4 is not legal on the US Ham bands simply because it does not comply with the 300 symbol per second rule under Part 97. Thus, no US Amateur station will use Pactor 4 on the Winlink 2000 Amateur system, at least, not within the FCC jurisdiction.
"That particular rule was set up for a specific reason, and that reason no longer applies directly to protocol bandwidth as it once did. Short symbol rates are now common place, and in fact, are the standard for our own STANAG government MIL-SPEC/Fed Std protocols. There are quite a few parties interested in a NPRM that would propose the 300 baud symbol rate limit elimination, but no one has stepped up to the plate to write it. Most people, including regulators, do not quite understand what it all means and even more so, how it applies in today's digital world.
"Steve, k4cjx"
In short, from what I have been able to gather, there seems to be a 'tug-of-war' in the amateur community which may be a translation of personal feelings among the parties. Each side has strong beliefs, which appear to be rooted in the dogma of hostility. Jerry correctly sums it up, "where's the beef?" I believe my source is an innocent third party who relayed what they heard. Were they being used as a conduit? Who knows. Is someone out there 'fanning the flames?' -- I don't know, perhaps.
PACTOR NEWS is concerned with the use of Pactor and promotes its use. Toward that end Pactor-4 can be of benefit. It's already being used outside the USA quite sucessfully. Whether or not it becomes legal in the US ham band is probably only a matter of time and depends upon who wants to 'step up' and press forward in gaining its acceptance. Meanwhile, the digital community watches and waits.
Rev: 15-JAN-2012
AUTOMATED MAILBOXES UNDER THREAT?
In addition, so-called "Homeland Security Concerns" may exist where "codes and other means of obscuring the meaning" of messages may be a significant problem.
While directly there is no tie to PACTOR-4, the use of PACTOR-4 on Store and Forward operations is seen as adding to the problem rather than correcting it. Meanwhile, my sources report there are some 'bottlenecks' in the process to allow PACTOR-4 to legally operate in the US Hambands. Some progress has been made, I was told; however, there are some issues about commerical conflict and whether PACTOR-4 (being called a closed protocol designed for commercial use) merits use on the ham bands when royalities are involved.
More on this topic later as further news is released.
Rev: 14-JAN-2012
PACTOR-4 - UPDATES AND IMPROVEMENTS!
Rev: 11-DEC-2011
PACTOR-4 - WHAT'S MISSING THAT SHOULD BE THERE?
Demetre says: "The P4dragon is missing FEC PACTOR and some other modes. I think it is imperative for SCS to make the new P4dragon support all the modes the older PTC-II series modems did.
"As it is P4dragon is not 100% useful to Radio Amateurs, but only to the die hard Pactorists and mostly to the ones who are only interested in the Winlink2000 system. It would be great if they could also support PSK-31, RTTY, SSTV, WEFAX, NAVTEX, perhaps ALE 141 and perhaps other exotic soundcard modes (MFSK, Olivia etc.) as well as Pactor.
"Also a Pactor listen mode is imperative because as it is now we cannot have any Pactor QSOS with the P4dragon, and QSOS are the best part in Amateur Radio.
"It is a shame to tell you that I have read in the newsgroups that people are thinking of using MULTIPSK (a soundcard program) for calling CQ Pactor on 100 baud Pactor FEC and for decoding FEC Pactor CQ calls from others and then switching to their P4dragon for a Pactor 1/2/3 or 4 QSO. Instead P4dragon should have this ability of listening or transmitting FEC Pactor.
"73 de Demetre SV1UY"
Rev: 17-JUL-2011
PACTOR-4 RAISES QUESTIONS FOR USA HAMS
Much as PACTOR-2 and PACTOR-3 were challenged as being 'non-compliant' with FCC Rules and Regulations, time has shown that novel digital modes do take time to 'shake-out' and their later adoption has been credited to technical standards. However, PACTOR-4 uses a challenging modulation scheme and unlike previous PACTOR modes, the signal is so complex so as to render obsolete many existing FCC Amateur Band standards. While the idea of rapid data transfer appeals to many hams, there is great objection to the growing bandwidths of new modes. The preference is for digital signals to be contained within a 500Hz bandwidth -- and -- the narrower, the better.
Some of the objections to PACTOR-4 are logical and based upon existing technical standards. However, others object to PACTOR (no matter the bandwidth) based upon purely personal motives. These objections fall into three areas, technical, financial, and personal. The technical objections (as with PACTOR-2 and PACTOR-3) can be addressed by the process of acceptance and changing of the existing rules. It is more difficult to deal with the financial and personal areas. The high cost of a PACTOR TNC has always been the source of frustration for those who might otherwise be very interested. Unfortunately, the Amateur Radio crowd would rather get something for nothing -- hence the preference for software driven applications. The personal aspect of objecting to PACTOR has its roots in the licensing and control of the mode. Back in the days of PACTOR-1, past licensees and builders of PACTOR-1 TNCS (AEA, MFJ, KAM, etc.) took shortcuts that cheapened the product and undermined the original specifications to the point that some TNCs were so inferior as to hurt the reputation of the mode itself. Many articles of the time were devoted to the inferior performance of the PACTOR-1 mode itself, when in fact the units under test themselves did NOT meet and undercut specifications.
Is it any wonder that SCS (makers of the PTC) clamped down on letting others make inferior copies of their products? The bad experience of marketing PACTOR-1 led to the high cost (for a fantastic unit) for newer products to grow even higher. In addition the tight control of the source code and the shielding of technical aspects caused the 'freebee' software writers to be 'shut-out' of attempting to write inferior copies of software only applications of PACTOR-2 and more recent upgrades. So, the financial and personal objections have pretty much combined to avoid SCS products.
The current challenge is two-fold. First, to compare the actual results achieved with PACTOR-4 and secondly to see if the PACTOR-4 can be effective in the the ham radio arena. Meanwhile, PACTOR-4 needs to be tested in the USA and elsewhere to determine if the rising price of this newest mode is justified. Only time and experience will tell if PACTOR-4 can work in the ham bands.
Rev: 05-JUN-2011
WELCOME PACTOR-4 - YES !! PACTOR-4 is here
Click here for more info on Pactor-4
Rev: 04-APR-2011
We are now on our new server and hopefully can devote
some more time to the PACTOR mode. PACTOR is an HF
communications mode which is primarily used by Hams
and others to transfer data point to point.
Here is some interesting mail about PACTOR.
Click here to read this interesting mail exchange.
Shortly after posting this email we received a nasty response.
Click here to read this reply email.
Your comments are always welcome and I look forward to hearing from you.
73 de Phil - N8PS
-----
The PACTOR web site is up and running. Unfortunately, due to the struggling
economy and high financial cost, our written publication has ceased.
However, our support for PACTOR as an HF digital mode has never been higher.
This site continues to serve as an information clearinghouse about PACTOR.
More exciting news is on the way, so please keep checking back as we work
to expand this web site and increase its content.
Meanwhile, PACTOR remains the leader in HF digital technology.
73 FOR NOW - DE PHIL - N8PS
Latest PTC-II/II(e) software update = Version 4.0
The latest PTC-pro software update is Version 4.0
HOW DOES PACTOR STACK UP? (28-Nov-96)
Click here to read about mode comparisons.
The best digital ARQ (linked) mode on High Frequency ( 3 to 30 MegaHertz ) Amateur Radio is called PACTOR.
It transfers text, files, and graphics quickly and without error. Pactor was invented in Germany and is quite popular among
hams who communicate by radio with computers. PACTOR NEWS is an online source
dedicated specifically to PACTOR.
THE PTC-IIpro
[Click on image for full size view]
Click here if you would like to read my biography or for information about Clayton, Ohio.
Thanks for reading.. this is Phil Sussman - N8PS - 73's
Please bear with us, as this page is still under construction. Thanks!
