Dave, Of course Pactor-III has been "publicly" documented! <wink>
See: http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor/pactor
However, it would take a judge in a court of law to decide if it has
been "adequately" documented publicly. As far as it is known, nobody has
been able to design a competing device to the SCS modem, always citing
inadequate disclosure as a reason.
Another real serious problem with Pactor-III is that it changes
bandwidth according to conditions, getting wider in order to increase
speed when conditions permit. The result is that Pactor-III "owns" a
channel, even if at first it looks like part of the channel is available
for other modes.
The emitted bandwidth for the 60m digital channel really needs to be
limited to 500 Hz. In fact, why not split the space into four or five
500 Hz-wide channels, which would give others a chance to operate there?
Even mentioning PSK31 and RTTY is undoubtedly just a "red herring" when
the REAL reason behind ARRL's petition is probably to support Winlink
expansion under the guise of being necessary for Emcomm.
Better file your comments on the NPRM ASAP, and encourage everyone you
meet on the bands to do the same thing. The FCC does listen to the
comments, and considers every one.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Dave Wright wrote:
I take that as a "no" to my question about whether Pactor III has ever
been publicly documented.
My understanding is that if it is not, then it isn't authorized for
use on the amateur bands in the US. I'm not opposed to Pactor III,
per se, but by my understanding it doesn't comply with the basic
rules. If this is the case, then either the rules need to change, or
the modes that don't comply need to be removed from the air.
Thoughts?
Dave
