At 09:13 PM 29/12/2007, Rodger wrote: >Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > > Quite the contrary, many american hams own a PTC-II modem, also there > > are more PACTOR PMBOs in USA than the rest of the World right now my > > friend. > >To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on one's use of the word "many." >In fact, a vanishingly small percentage of either American or European >digital operators ever bought SCS modems, due to their high cost. That >was the problem -- it was very difficult to have a Pactor2 >Keyboard-to-Keyboard (KtoK) QSO because so few ops had an SCS modem--and >SCS modems were the ONLY TNCs that could support Pactor 2. For reasons >I am not conversant with, no other manufacturer was ever able to license >Pactor from SCS. Some tried to reverse-engineer Pactor, with some >success with Pactor 1, but no success of which I am aware with Pactor 2. >(The HAL attempts to implement "P-Mode" were a failure, it appeared to >me.) This further diminished Pactor's popularity to the point where >KtoK use of Pactor is as extinct as the Dodo bird in North America at >least. I cannot speak for Europe because propagation being what it is >these days I can rarely hear or work Europe. When you tell me that >Pactor is more common in Europe, I cannot contradict you for this >reason. If true, a logical explanation is the fact that SCS is based in >Europe and Pactor originated there. Or am I wrong, Demetre? > >It became impossible to convince anyone (other than mailbox operators) >to get an SCS TNC once the sound card modes appeared on the scene, more >or less invented by Peter Martinez, one of ham radio's Greats. Since >probably all hams had access to a computer, the need for a $500+ TNC >vanished since hams had access to a plethora of digital modes merely by >interfacing one's radio to the computer. Once I switched over from >Pactor to the sound card modes, I discovered that all of my old Pactor >buddies had done the same, and Pactor was simply dead except for mailboxes. > >There may be a lot of American MBOs, as you say. This illustrates the >need for all of us to support Mark's fine petition -- to get control of >this legion of unattended source of QRM for the benefit and betterment >of our hobby and the advancement of the radio art. > >Despite my support for Mark's fine petition, I suspect that the >mailboxes will fade away pretty soon anyway, as boaters and RVers get >access to the internet through satellite and Wi Fi rather than the >horribly inefficient Winlink system. Heck, you can get internet access >via Wi Fi in coffeeshops and Starbucks these days. They are adding Wi >Fi capability to boat harbors here in California. This trend will >likely spell the end to Winlink. And Pactor. > >de Roger W6VZV
I am trying to set up my HF Packet PBBS system to operate mobile/portable on a motorcycle. I figure that IF I operate in the right band allocation, I should be sharing with like mode stations, which means there should be no major problems. Yes, its an automated system that has been around for years.......so, what is the problem now? Have the bands been swamped with Packet stations operating outside the suggested freq ranges? I mean....I guess I should not worry too much, as the FCC can't make rules for me...:-) 73 Jack VK4JRC
