The existence of independent decoders capable of all three Pactor
family modes does not necessarily demonstrate this family to be non-
proprietary. We don't know that Wavecom built their product
exclusively from publicly information such as that cited in Nick's
post below. For all we know, Wavecom may have licensed additional
information, executable code libraries, or source code from SCS.
Bob N4HY alluded to showstopping impediments to an independent
Pactor family implementation. Artie KC2MFS has gone one step further
and identified critical gaps in the published Pactor information. Is
this missing information available elsewhere? If not, then Pactor is
in fact proprietary, and its use in the US would be in violation of
FCC regulations.
If a Pactor family implementation were feasible on Windows, it would
be quite tempting to build one and include busy frequency detectors.
This would expose any missing information, which would then be
requested from SCS. Were SCS not forthcoming, their responses would
be routed directly to the ARRL and FCC. Other than firmly resolving
the "Is Pactor proprietary?" question, however, building such an
implementation on a PC running a suitable realtime operating system
would be a waste of time, as few hams would be willing to deploy it.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], N2QZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> KV9U wrote:
>
> > Bob's point is well taken.
>
> Bob's point is without merit. The specifications are public and
no one
> is keeping you or anyone else from implementing your own decoder.
In
> fact, independent decoders capable of all three PACTOR family
modes
> already exist:
>
> http://www.wavecom.ch/downloads/PDF/W61Brochure_internet.pdf
>
> > The FCC regulation on technical descriptions, ยง 97.309(a)(4),
reads:
> >
> > (4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission
using a
> > digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
technique whose
> > technical characteristics have been documented publicly,
such as
> > CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating
> > communications.
> >
> > ARRL further states:
> >
> > "Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique
or
> > protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of
stations
> > in communication and read the content of the transmissions."
> >
> > Clearly, Pactor 2 and 3 and probably Clover II, do not
completely
> > fulfill these requirements. Since they have been used for many
years
> > now, it is probably too late to do much about it and I doubt
that the
> > ARRL Directors would take any action. However, one could mention
it to
> > their director and see what response they get.
>
> Laughter would probably be a good start for an appropriate
response.
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/PACTOR.html
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/PACTOR-
II.html
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/PACTOR-
III.html
>
> http://ecjones.org/pactor.html
> http://ecjones.org/PT-III.pdf
>
> http://people.uncw.edu/youngb/research/nwc.pdf
> http://www.rmsinst.com/dt3.htm
>
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?
native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518330597
>
> Your technical inability to implement the documented protocols
does not
> constitute a Part 97 rule violation on the part of those using
PACTOR
> modes, nor should it.
>
> > In the last year the Winlink 2000 spokesperson made a big deal
how
> > "secure" Winlink 2000 was since it was not very practical to
read the
> > messages even if they had one of the SCS modems that could
monitor the
> > frequency because all they would see is scrambled data. They
were
> > challenged by another ham who wrote a program that can decode
their
> > format and they had to back down somewhat. This is not due to
the SCS
> > product as much as it is due to a compression technique that
Winlink
> > 2000 uses.
>
> Yes, that was me.
>
> > Unlike anything else in amateur radio, I have never seen as much
closed
> > and proprietary techniques that we have seen from Winlink 2000
and I
> > think this is a big factor for the animosity so many hams have
to such
> > operations that are completely opposite the whole spirit of
amateur
> > radio. There are those of us who try to promote interoperation
of any
> > messaging systems on amateur radio and while there is not much
interest
> > in this, we do have a forum on the winlink2000 yahoogroup that
permits
> > all points of view.
> >
> > For those of you who do have an SCS modem, can you provide us
with your
> > experiences in your success in monitoring the traffic content on
the
> > amateur radio bands with these modes?
>
> Since you are already familiar with my experience of successfully
> decoding PACTOR III Winlink 2000 transmissions off the air, I'm
not sure
> what you're looking for here. Could you be more specific about
what it
> is that you want?
>
> --
> 73 de Nick N2QZ
> Section Traffic Manager, Eastern New York Section
> FISTS #11469
> SKCC #1027
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
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/
