John W0JAB wrote: "I like it (Pactor) and will operate it." You have every right to, assuming you don't interfere with an ongoing QSO etc. And someone calling your home and swearing at you was uncalled for, so to speak, and not in the spirit of ham radio.
But several people have brought up some interesting issues. One was the statement this is "an 'anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection' rant" not an anti-Pactor rant. That never got answered. Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III question, but that one also never got answered. Pactor III is reliable but expensive. I personally wish there were equally good (with error correction) but inexpensive alternatives for HF, and also that Winlink would be changed to listen first. Because I'm a big proponent of a diversity of modes, and I think we should work together to coexist. Heck, I like the old modes almost as much as the new ones. Also interesting was David KD4NUE's "When there is a race for control of long-haul spectrum (for which there is a renewed interest among military, agency and NGOs), it is nice to have a dog in the hunt." That may help explain the ARRL's action, I guess. Jim - K6JM ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Becker, WØJAB" To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I don't know Skip. Tell us. You seem to have an answer for everything and everyone. after thinking about that, don't tell us. I really don't care what you are others think about pactor. I like it and will operate it. John, W0JAB
