Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Dave, I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter) results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs. Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is protected but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about the protocol is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3 argument. This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I'm familiar with and use both SetThreadPriority, QueryPerformanceCounter - but Windows provides no way to guarantee that a process will receive service within a specified limit. Try dragging around the Windows Task Manager, for example; even the highest priority processes will be starved. Running Windows in a virtual machine (e.g. VMWare) on Linux and running the protocol engine directly on Linux could be a solution. I have not pursued the Pactor spec or IP issues; you might ask Bob N4HY via his email address in QRZ.com. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Brown Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:18 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes Dave, I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter) results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs. Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is protected but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about the protocol is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3 argument. This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands. Simon Brown, HB9DRV - Original Message - From: Dave AA6YQ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I have often made the distinction between Pactor III and Winlink, Demetre. For example, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:28 AM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Hi Dave, This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before transmitting. Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS etc. using PACTOR/PACKET or any other modes, work in a different way and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Jose, Happy New Year to you and your family. Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list). As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with a special addon PCB so that it can take PACTOR 1 modeand I followed all the firmware upgrades up to 8.1 I think. It is now in the basement somewhere so it is not handy for me to check. But as I said before it was always a lousy PACTOR controller (probably it had a bad modem design because even in HF packet it performed badly. I did never own a KAM, but a friend of mine owned one of the early ones. He always used it on RTTY, but I began experimenting with that packet thing when I visited him then... Packet on HF...required a LOT of patience. Seems I achieved it (I know quite a few that did not...), as I spent some 5 years of HF packet sysop, and then, some other six or seven in pactor. In packet, a single erroneous bit trashes the frame. Fading, sparks, collissions, all of that made it too easy to generate a retry. For some time, I ran my homebrew linear (about 400 watts out) to keep the link to the US. Really, not affordable, it cooked a final tank that was quite OK for SSB or CW, but not for packet. I had to rebuild that pi-network. I could do the same in pactor2 with only 25 watts, not only to the neighborhood, but also to Africa. So, actually, the pactor 2 and 3 modulation schemes are good for low powers. Where is the key to it? The protocol. Using ARQ plus FEC (convolutional code), data interleaving and block codes allows to recover frames that packet layer one would lose. It is similar to what CD's and digital broadcasting uses nowadays. In retrospective, packet radio layer one belongs to the dark ages. Could it be changed? Yes, AX.25 specification only deals with layers 2 and 3, and Q15X25 did it with some success. But in general, manufacturers did not innovate on this. I was not really aware of that back then, either. What is missing on this scheme: bandwidth/speed negotiation, like pactor does to survive bad links. SCAMP failure is associated with its unability to negotiate the link. So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO. I have never got any addons to my SCS PTC-II. And the newer robust packet adittion also requires a RAM addition to 2 MB. I just have loaded the tiny38.pt2 firmware upgrade and it still works quite OK. That is another example I did not mention: robust packet, using PSK instead of FSK. I don't know in detail the tricks they added to robust packet, but it would be interesting to dig and see (if that could be possible) what they did. But certainly, data modes require some coding tricks to survive the HF hostile environment (Olivia success is based on the Walsh code layer it uses), as has become usual nowadays for data transfers (keyboarding is something with a different twist, the simpler the better). It was a mixture of sheer good luck and naiveness to get a raw Bell 103 modem to work on the lower HF bands. Maybe Kantronics Golay COULD have been better, but 300 baud is generally too much. And it never really became popular, with each manufacturer having its own pet project, that did not achieve the numbers required to have an impact on the community. PA0R comments about PSK speeds in PSKMail seem to agree with what is well known: PSK63 works, PSK125 somehow, but nowadays PSK250 has only a 60% success. On 10 meters and using a single propagated ray (as usually happens close to the MUF), I would not be surprised to see that PSK1200 (or QPSK1200) would work as well. 73 de Demetre SV1UY 73, Jose, CO2JA __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ? It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble, NOT the net or system. Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :( LA5VNA Jose A. Amador skrev: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I fully agree. I have no problem with the mode or modulation. I wish I could run Pactor-2 cheaply! It is just the Pactor-3 bomb from unattended Winlink machines that explodes over existing QSO's in the narrowband data areas that irritates me. I am happy to put Jack's Pactor/Packet (kb-2-kb) spotting page up at http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/ which if nothing else will give an indication of the amount of use of keyboard-keyboard QSO's in these modes. 73 Sholto KE7HPV - Original Message - From: Steinar Aanesland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ? It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble, NOT the net or system. Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :( LA5VNA Jose A. Amador skrev: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Demetre SV1UY wrote: --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com, Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world is supposed to be tolerant. 73 de Demetre SV1UY P.S. enough said!!! __ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu http://www.universidad2008.cu
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would never ban a specific product. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two challenges: 1. The documentation provided is insufficient 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide #1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2 reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either the application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other realtime OS (small user base), or the application must run on a dedicated processor in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user base). Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not be motivated by a dare alone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com , Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
RX only wouldn't need to worry about turnaround times.. Hmmm Leigh/WA5ZNU On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:23 pm, Dave AA6YQ wrote: Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two challenges: 1. The documentation provided is insufficient 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide #1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2 reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either the application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other realtime OS (small user base), or the application must run on a dedicated processor in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user base). Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not be motivated by a dare alone. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John B. Stephensen Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:49 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would never ban a specific product. 73, John KD6OZH - Original Message - From: Demetre SV1UY mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an unavoidable evil... Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS Z-80 Pactor Controller. PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA did. Jose, CO2JA --- Hi Jose, Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10 years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation). This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do the same with other software writers. I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a soundcard program, but I think they can't. If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3 (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product! At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all. Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I like PSKmail much more than NBEMS. Both can be called The poor man's Winlink2000, but really they leave a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF propagation is concerned. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote: I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not the frequency is locally clear not some inherent flaw or suboptimal characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that one must ensure that ones modem does not dynamically expand its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode. 73, Dave, AA6YQ Its not hard to stop the SCS Modem from using Pactor 3. You just set MYLevel parameter to 2, modem will then only operate Pactor 1 or 2. Pactor 3 is locked out. Problem is SCS have the default set for use of Pactor 3 comms if desired, which works for the first 20 connects, after that you buy the licence from SCS and its coded to the modem serial number, where I believe originally it was coded to your callsign. 73s Jack VK4JRC
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
- Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes snip Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units. Charles, N5PVL No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1201 - Release Date: 12/28/2007 11:51 AM
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Charles Brabham wrote: - Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes snip Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units. Charles, N5PVL Yes, that is the one. The hardware was mostly SCS-built as I recall, but they did try to differentiate the product somehow or other. In any case they were the only company ever to license Pactor protocol from SCS if I remember correctly. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Hi Rick, Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units. As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well, I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one. You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that. In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor. As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS wants to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. de Roger W6VZV
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
-Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:08 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying degrees of success. de Roger W6VZV * Well, I guess that explains why all 3 of the PK-232s that I have with 7.2 firmware have a Pactor Licesne Number on the ROM. I guess they actually went as far as proividing a individual license number for ther reverse engineering project. Sure fooled me, but I still prefer the Pactor III in my SCS Controller Ain't nothing like the real thing. I enjoyed using it last night to monitor some stateside Keyboard to Keyboard operation. And, of course, of the SCS Controllers currently in place or projected for our small ruaral Georgia county in the 911 center, 2 hospitals, Federal Law Enforcemnt Training center (2 units), local PMBO, Enviromental health, Red Cross, and at least 3 individual end users - Gee, that is 11 Pactor III licensed controllers currently in operation, purchased or budgeted for in a relatively small South Georgia county. There may be a half dozen more on the plan for the coming year...I sure am glad that the SCS Scourge isn't growing... David KD4NUE
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre SV1UY wrote: Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did not mean to offend you. No worry, Demetre. You did not upset me. I was merely pointing out that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome. I assume that you will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention. You have not once shown that any of my points were in error. You mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently) for a refutation of someone's logical argument. On the other hand, you are clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several persons on this forum have pointed that out at length. On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that ever happened. I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it. HAL did the same thing. So did Kantronics. This reverse-engineering led to some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could support Pactor II. If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an SCS modem. OK, signing off for the weekend. This thread has become repetitive and tiresome. Moderator, no need to point that out to me. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre, It is possible that SCS did license Pactor at a later time. It seems to me that other companies tried to implement the memory ARQ function with limited success. This feature is not necessary for Pactor to operate, but it does help greatly with weak signals. However, if a company licenses a product, they normally get some kind of source code or something of value that makes their product equal to their competition they are buying it from. And there is no question whatsoever that the AEA, HAL, and KAM products Pactor implementation simply did not work as well as SCS's. The only company here in the U.S. that I am sure had a license from SCS was Gwyn Reedy, W1BEL's, Paccomm Company. I think I recall that he purchased the boards, but at least the firmware from SCS. He used different packaging and a minor feature or two to try and differentiate his product, but discovered that he could not really compete and eventually discontinued production and sales. Sadly, Gwyn was killed in a vehicular accident only a year ago:( He was a major promoter of packet radio and equipment. The reason that companies could duplicate Pactor without a license is that initially it was more of an open standard intended for ham radio use. The principals of SCS are hams. It was not until Pactor 2 and then Pactor 3 that it became a highly protected product. Even so, I have a letter in my files, which I can not seem to find at the moment, but I think I still have someplace, from Bill Henry at HAL discussing this issue as I was concerned about it before buying the HAL P-38 modem. This was before the invention of P2. Pactor modes do not have any miracle abilities for weak signals. What they do have is the ability to combine a number of enhancements in one protocol to make it work at a highly optimized level under varying conditions. Nothing like that exists with sound cards because thus far there has been no interest by those who have the ability to write this kind of software to do so. Some of us have asked and they have said their focus is on keyboard chat modes to the exclusion of high speed messaging. For weak. error free signals, I have been very impressed with the new FAE 400 mode and this is the first sound card mode that can work better than Pactor in weak signals and with similar bandwidth ( 500 Hz) but not quite as fast under better conditions since it can not change speeds. The wide FAE mode (faster baud rate and faster throughput) can not compete well with weaker signals and the width is a problem when you also consider the throughput. Pactor 2 is still the best narrow mode protocol at this time. Pactor 3 is much the same except intended for commercial channels where you have the space to widen out tremendously after the initial 500 Hz negotiation to determine if the other station is a P1, P2, or P3 station and then what kind of conditions are present. I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open it up for cross platform use. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ. That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other spectrum users! hi hi hi!!! As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious american company does reverse engineering. Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in PACTOR 1 Rick. Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these systems, unless if this has changed by now. Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Demetre, You really need to end this conjecture about Pactor unless you have some new information that Pactor is proprietary like Pactor 2 and Pactor 3. If you check on the internet, you will find that Pactor is an open protocol, while P2 and P3 use proprietary technology controlled by one German company, SCS Corp. Source: Wikipedia, which may not always be definitive, can be relatively non-biased. Here is hoping for a wonderful new year for all. 73, Rick, KV9U Demetre SV1UY wrote: Well Roger, Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these companies are not worth a penny. As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show any courtesy at all. Enjoy your weekend OM. 73 de Demetre SV1UY
