I actually have a genuine interest in this issue since I have neighbor who has designed a few ham radio related products and expressed an interest in possibly designing inexpensive PACTOR TNCs. He asked me to get some info on the specs. I started with the fact that I thought it was proprietary and thus he might be wasting his efforts.
On 6/24/06, Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bob N4HY, could you elaborate on the difficulties you encountered > when trying to implement Pactor? > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > --- In [email protected] <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, > Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Dave: > > > > The technical specification is incomplete. You may not take their > > documents and implement a compatible system (been there, done > > that, got the tire tracks on my back). They have not made these > > specifications public to my knowledge anywhere, including the > > F.C.C. As such, I do not see why it is not an illegal scrambler > > in the U.S. > > > > Bob > > N4HY > > > > > > Dave Bernstein wrote: > > > I don't think the problem lies with SCS, Doc. First, they have > > > provided descriptions of the Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 protocols; > > > the absence of alternate implementations is more likely the > > > result of constraints imposed by Windows than technical > > > obfuscation by SCS. > > > > Second, Pactor 2 and Pactor 3 in keyboard-to-keyboard mode are, > > > from a QRM-generating perspective, no different than RTTY or > > > AMTOR -- there are operators on both ends listening to the > > > frequency, so QRMing an ongoing QSO is unlikely. > > > > > > The problem is semi-automatic operation without busy frequency > > > detection. This results in QRM to ongoing QSOs, and there's no > > > way to communicate with the station generating the QRM even if > > > you happen to have the right modem because the guilty station is > > > automaticly controlled! This is the case with semi-automatic > > > operation in CW, RTTY, or PSK -- the fact that Pactor 2 or > > > Pactor 3 are being used by many message passing services > > > (because they are fast and error-free) is actually irrelevant. > > > > > > Enforcement would certainly be easier if we could eliminate the > > > need to decode every protocol out there. Requiring the > > > participants of each digital mode QSO -- whether attended, semi- > > > automatic, or automatic -- to periodically identify in a common, > > > easily-decoded modulation and format would greatly facilitate > > > self-policing. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, > > NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman > > Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity. Guilty as > > charged! > > > -- Andy K3UK Fredonia, New York. Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 Also available via Echolink [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
