Hi Rick, Well, I had a go at Pactor and could not make it work, between the SCS PTC-IIex and the SCS PTC-Pro I have here. The radios were the problem, they would kerchunk away here and go nowhere, so I gave up on it. I guess the radios were not suited to the switching times required for Pactor. Those same 2 radios are great on Packet though and I think the SCS TNCs probably offer better performance on Packet than my Kantronics TNCs (I have about 6 of them, various models!) I even have an old original Paccom Pactor modem here :-) Whilst Winlink and Pactor 3 may offer good data throughput, I have to ask that is this bandwidth needed for simple text messaging? Next, people will be wanting to stream Video over HF :-) As far as emergency comms go.....involving a third party bearer in the links is scary (the Internet). Call me a Dinosaur but, I don't wish to use the Internet in any part of transferring data in my Ham HF data comms operating. In my case of portable operation, I don't want to be lugging a laptop, so a small radio, Buddipole antenna, Packet TNC and either of my 2 Psion palmtops in Terminal mode can operate the TNC just fine, and they run on AA batteries! I am going to give PSK31 a shot with the new NUE-PSK modem I have ordered, but it is only a keyboard to keyboard unit. As I said, I have a specific requirement for ham HF operation from my motorcycle, mainly because of where I ride, my luggage space and power budget. As far as the FCC petition....everyone has their case to put, based on how they will be affected by any potential FCC changes, I won't argue with that but it seems that there are some long held grudges between groups of operators using various modes. There is only so much spectrum available and everyone is clamouring for a space or MORE space, in their area of interest. I guess U.S. Hams are lucky in that they are able to make submissions to the FCC, rather than the FCC just mandating what they want, and the U.S. Ham community simply having to suck it up and accept it. As I said before, I just hope this FCC stuff does not sour people against each other in the hobby. Like, Ham radio is meant to be fun!
73s Jack VK4JRC --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Jack, > > There will always be varying viewpoints on various technical issues. The > difference today is that we have vehicles to actually allow the average > person to discuss them worldwide such as through the democratizing > process on groups like digitlradio. > > There are those who do not really seem to grasp the paradigm shift in > the world because it can be messy (as democracy in action always is!) > There are others who strongly oppose democratization because they are > losing the power to control others. Individuals have nearly equal > standing at times, even against larger organizations. It also means that > extreme views, mentally unbalanced, etc., also get equal time and we do > not have the moderating of a larger power as we once had. Now the > individual must do the sifting and winnowing and there are many who are > not able or willing to do that. > > What we have on groups like this one, is a "Letters to the Editors > Column" without an editor who had the power to filter out things that > they did not want to come through. Of course whether this was good or > bad depended upon your viewpoints. If we can not discuss these views, > then these groups would have little or reduced value because you never > knew who or what was being blocked. > > The BBS concept (without the internet) was THE system in place for well > over a decade. We initially had worldwide packet HF BBS systems, however > they were less effective after the sunspots declined and the higher > bands became unusable. Packet does not work well on HF. It requires a > relatively high S/N ratio for any kind of throughput. The Aplink system > was set up with the Amtor protocol, to allow HF connections to BBS MBO's > (Mail Box Operations), since Amtor was nearly (not completely) error > free and could work much deeper into the noise. It only has a single > character case, so was similar to messaging sent via CW or voice nets. > These BBS's eventually were tied in to local VHF packet BBS systems so > that hams could send traffic worldwide although it could take days to > get through. Everything was done via amateur radio RF links for HF > although there were "wormholes" (practically speaking, the early > internet), that made big jumps to connect VHF packet. > > When Pactor and Clover II became available, the BBS system moved to > these modes and renamed the system Winlink to include a MS Windows GUI > interface along with the two new modes providing the transport. > > In the late 1990's the Winlink controllers realized that the system > traffic load was very limited and that the internet could be used to off > load most of the traffic. A Netlink system was added to Winlink, but I > did not get involved in that so only read a little about it in the RTTY > Digital Journal which at that time was THE vehicle of information for > digital operation until its failure. > > The Winlink controllers met and came up with a new topology for Winlink > and developed an internet centric system that now uses the internet to > route traffic on a worldwide system with varying distances for the RF > side to gain access to the internet. This can be a mile or 1000 miles or > more, can be on VHF or HF, but removes the forwarding traffic off the > amateur frequencies. If they had not done this, the necessary BBS > forwarding would not be possible to support on HF. And instead of > messages going through the internet in a few seconds, it would still > take days to reach the recipient. > > Unattended HF Beacons are generally not legal to operate here in the > U.S., but perhaps your rules allow you to do this? Using a non standard > mode will limit you to few other potential users. Pactor is not very > hard on switching of rigs. Amtor was a bit much at times, but with many > rigs intended to be QSK these days, or close to it, I would not be the > slightest bit concerned about using Pactor due to switching issues. > > Your experience with PSKmail is similar to mine. Many, many, hours spent > trying to get it to work with no practical results. Even when I have a > Linux system that I can dual boot into for experimenting. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U >
