Paul, It is certainly not a monopoly as anyone can try to come up with the system of their choice, even open source advocates could do that ... but they have not. And why is that? Is the open source community just not as competent as a private developer such as SCS?
Others would say that the timing and computing power of the dedicated SCS controller is much more powerful than even a fairly high end Pentium IV (as a dedicated task). Perhaps at this time, such a dedicated box is necessary to operate the Pactor mode or similar modes. An interconnected box is generally easier to configure than sound card tweaking, but that may vary with individual preference:) There are very few software Pactor I programs for transmitting. None for Windows that I know of. Let us know if you have new information. If you are using the Winlink 2000 system, there are still some stations that will accept P1 mode, but many are no longer accepting connects due to the need for so much more connect time compared to the higher speed modes. The one sound card mode that Winlink developers are trying to improve enough to have practical use, is the SCAMP mode. Right now it needs too much of a S/N ratio to work well with typical signals, but it is possible that they will be able to have a slower, but more robust mode that can compete favorably. What I have never understood is why we can not develop a system whereby HF (or for that matter VHF/UHF) stations can gateway into the internet via some basic system that does not itself require a complicated and fragile internet system. It is probably not possible since the routing issues are the major stumbling block and require a server system such as the Winlink 2000 approach. But that makes for very fragile system that can fail, when failure could be a serious issue during an actual emergency. But there may be no alternative. 73, Rick, KV9U -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 13:03 To: [email protected] Subject: [digitalradio] Question about HF-email I was kinda interested in HF-email until I found out I must buy a "pactor" modem, either used or from SCS. As that one company is the only source of hardware, it seems more a monopoly than free market. Also - it's one more box to connect/power/configure/worry about. The rig and computer (maybe antenna tuner) are enough. But I'm pretty sure some of my digital software packages do Pactor (Pactor I). Is that enough to send/receive email or is Pactor II/III a must? I recall reading that SCS published specs just fuzzy enough to pass "no secrets" requlations but withheld enough so their protocol can't be copied - is that the deal? Assuming just Pactor (software mode in some digital software applications) won't work, is there any current development towards the ability to send/receive email via HF rigs without requiring a proprietary box? Thanks and 73, Paul The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005 The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
