Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: 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. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. If you don't comment, you might wish you had! 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: 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. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast.
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster. I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB At 03:09 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. If you don't comment, you might wish you had! 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: 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. Jim to answer that I really would have to say that for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast. inline: 18327ff.jpg
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John W0JAB wrote: I Have only been a (ham) since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. I got into amateur radio in 1959, and there were fairly strong disagreements between AMers and SSBers. In recent years, there have been disagreements between QROers and QRPers. Some high power folks are happy to talk to you until you let slip you are only running 3 watts, then they drop the QSO fast. Clearly folks who've had QSOs wiped out by automated HF stations have some strong feelings about that. Heck, I've had PSK31 QSOs disrupted by a CW operator coming on frequency, though narrow filters can help there. For as long as I've been listening, particularly on 80 meters, there are people who believe they own a frequency and behave that way. Right now, I see a lot of analog FM VHF/UHF operators quite upset with digital voice modes like D-Star. In regions where 2 meter repeater frequencies are scarce, there's quite a war going on about these new modes. But all of these are examples of the minority of hams, in my opinion. Most hams try to help each other, get along with each other and tolerate those who are into different facets of this great hobby. Jim - K6JM - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster. I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB
[digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
When did Pactor-III (up to 2200 Hz wide, I think), suddenly become a narrowband data mode? 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41 and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes. Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode? -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:53:16PM +0100, Ian Wade G3NRW wrote: From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 Time: 08:08:41 and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) ??? are popular narrowband data modes. Since when was Pactor III a narrow-band mode? In comparison to commercial mass-market broadcast FM, it is. Other than that, it isn't. If the ARRL claims that it is, my response is: All the pigs have been serviced and fueled and are in all respects ready for flight, Sir. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin http://www.obriensweb.com/digispotter.html Chat, Skeds, and spots all in one (resize to suit)Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
In a channelized setting, PIII will not exceed allowed bandwidth. But, to answer your question about why the ARRL pushes PIII; relevance in emergency communications for current sustainability of allotted spectrum. 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. But, the move to give more legitimacy to Pactor III (PIII) in the ham bands will fail, as ultimately the Amateur Radio Service's claim to all of the spectrum they currently enjoy. The Queen is dead; long live the Queen David KD4NUE -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Ellison Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 7:36 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... http://hraunfoss. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
What it means is that the channel will be dominated with personal Winlink Pactor-III traffic, completely filling it up, with no sharing, or any space left for truly narrowband modes like PSK31 - all in the name of emergency communications. It has proven impossible for a Pactor-III ARQ station (one side is ALWAYS unattended) to share with any other services that already have priority, just as they do not share with other radio amateur communications, because they do not listen first. The 99% of hams that do not use Winlink will have that 60m channel taken away from them. 73 - Skip KH6TY Andy obrien wrote: It seems odd to me too Rick. However, i do note... means of on-off keying (emission designator 150HA1A) continues to be used by amateur stations because of its reliability in difficult propagation conditions. ARRL also states that the other requested emission designators – 60H0J2B (which is generally known as PSK31) and 2K80J2D (which is generally known as PACTOR-III) – are popular narrowband data modes.16 We propose to add these three emission designators, which would allow four permissible emission types to be used in the 60 meter band. We propose to permit any additional modulation techniques that we adopt to be used on all assigned frequencies within the 60 meter band, including the assigned frequency 5368 kHz in the event that we do not adopt our proposal to replace the assigned frequency 5368 kHz with 5358.5 kHz PSK31 would be welcome. Andy K3UK On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Rick Ellison relli...@twcny.rr.com mailto:relli...@twcny.rr.com wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-76A1.pdf This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. 73 Rick N2AMG www.n2amg.com http://www.n2amg.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on Behalf Of John Becker, WOJAB Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:50 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
RE: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
I would belive that if it was not for that fact that shortly after a PACTOR QSO the phone has rang telling me what orifice I should shove my pactor equipment into. Leaving no guessing what so ever about it. Then not even giving me time to say I was in a 2 person QSO. That my friend was the last time I sent a CW ID after a nice QSO. That tells me TWO things - 1. The person *can* copy CW. 2. Can't copy any PACTOR . So does the source of the pactor really matter? I don't think so. I really do not think seven out of ten can even copy P-1. Maybe that's reason they don't like is it *because* the CAN'T copy it with their sound card. I really don't care what it is. You know what they say about the porch and the big dog's. So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type?
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: Often, very often. All pactor modes. As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. At 02:19 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote:
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. I did. Touch typing is typing without using the sense of sight to find the keys. *Typing* is the process of inputting text into a device, such as a typewriter /wiki/Typewriter, cell phone /wiki/Cell_phone, computer /wiki/Computer, or a calculator /wiki/Calculator, by pressing keys on a keyboard /wiki/Computer_keyboard. It can be distinguished from other means of input, such as the use of pointing devices /wiki/Pointing_device like the computer mouse /wiki/Computer_mouse, and text input via speech recognition /wiki/Speech_recognition. Notice that any kind of typing is done by pressing keys on a keyboard. John, PSK31 was designed by G3PLX to accommodate a typical fast typist, or 50 wpm. Then why should a 2100 Hz-wide Pactor mode be legally allowed to take up a full channel for keyboarding when four Pactor-II stations could share the channel at the same time? 1. I'll venture a guess - it is not for person-to-person communication, but was done by the ARRL specifically for Winlink messaging, because NOBODY needs a 300 wpm mode for keyboarding, do they! So, 99% of the hams can now just kiss one of the 60m channels goodbye for general use. Thank you, ARRL! :-( 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: At 03:12 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: John, I was specifically asking only about Pactor-III keyboard-to-keyboard QSO's, not Pactor-II or Pactor I. Skip, just because you are anyone else can't copy P2 or P3 does not mean it does not happen. Belive me, it happens ! most of my keyboard to keyboard QSO are P2 or P3. Can't really recall last time I had a P1 QSO As for a typing. touch typing is a thing of the past. How do you personally carry on a keyboard-to-keyboard conversation without typing? ESP - There is a difference between typing and touch typing. Google it. 73 - Skip KH6TY
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
John and others, well I jumped in too soon. I thought he meant Pactor I as it was not specified in the original message. I also used to love both Pactor and Amtor ARQ modes.. still love Clover too, and will use any of them. 73 Buddy WB4M - Original Message - From: John Becker, WØJAB w0...@big-river.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... I can clearly see that this anti Pactor rant will Never end. John, W0JAB
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Just got started John.Don't have my station up and running yet.Can't seem to get something right.Trying to set up RTTY with no luck.I think I have verything set up right and see and hear signals on the screen.But no messages.I set all the jumpers by the book.But I can't send or recive any messages.I type about 65 wpm. Any advice or instruction as what I should do.I have run out of things to try.Thanks Hugh kd4txp.73 From: KH6TY kh...@comcast.net To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 3:19:58 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support... John, How frequently do you use Pactor-III, keyboard to keyboard? How fast do you touch type? 73 - Skip KH6TY John Becker, WØJAB wrote: So my friend I do think WINLINK has a lot to do with it when even a keyboard to keyboard QSO get's phone calls from some lid. But I guess, I'll look at the good side of it all. I will not be getting any calls from him again. Seems his state has laws about making phone calls like that. And he no longer has a land line. Thank you ATT Who would like to be the next one? I'm in the book. But to answer that question - Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III because it works, and works well. John, W0JAB At 01:23 PM 5/10/2010, AA6YQ wrote: It's an anti-Winlink without busy frequency detection rant, John. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
[digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
Rick Ellison writes: ... This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a channelized frequency setting.. A good question: I was thinking of sending in a comment on that NPRM, recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes which fit within the authorized bandwidth. However, it appears that the FCC is going to do that in any case. I am still inclined to write in and suggest that digital operation in the 60m band be confined to local or remote control, not automatic, to minimize the chance of interference to the primary users. Unlike some members of this list, I have nothing against Pactor-III on 60m (waste of spectrum when used for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs is not an issue with the fixed channels on 60m), and nothing against Pactor I and II at all. I do not choose to operate those modes, but neither do I wish to restrict *other* hams to operating as *I* choose. OTOH, I DO object to ham bots interfering with the primary users of spectrum which we share on a secondary basis with other services: it's bad for the amateur service's relationships with other spectrum users. Actually, I even object to the lid-bots on ham-only spectrum outside the automatic-control subbands. I'd like to see the automatic subbands made a bit wider, but the exception removed for automatic stations using 500 Hz or less in response to interrogation by a manually-controlled station. I'll just have to live what we have now, ince the FCC clearly disagrees with me. -- 73 DE KW6H, ex-A6VW, Chris, ae6vw-digitalra...@puffin.com
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
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
Re: [digitalradio] Why does the ARRL continue to push for Pactor III support...
On May 10, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Chris Jewell wrote: Rick Ellison writes: recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes So, has Pactor III every been publicly-documented??? Dave K3DCW Real radio bounces off the sky --
