The root cause of the complaints can be traced to the way that Pactor 
III was introduced to the amateur bands.  Most hams today consider 
the appropriate bandwidth of a signal in the RTTY/Data subbands to be 
500 Hz.  Wider bandwidth modes have been tolerated, but they 
typically are limited to one or two frequencies.  MT63 is a good 
example.  You did not find MT63 typically on more than 1 frequency 
per band, and you found that operators limited their bandwidth to 
1000 Hz with the occasional foray to 2000 Hz.  On 40 and 80 meters 
they limited their bandwidth to 500 Hz.  m.  The introduction of 
Pactor III into the amateur radio bands flew in the face of such 
tradition.  It was used by a small number of users who unnecessarily 
spread out over the bands, and quite frankly pissed people off.  Now 
the impression is that Pactor III users are spectrum grabbers.  The 
main objection to the ARRL regulation by bandwidth petition was the 
fear that Pactor III would proliferate in what is now the phone 
bands.  If PACTOR III had been deployed with constraint, I don't 
think you would find the angst that we have now against the 
mode.  Even before PACTOR III, there was a bias against automatically 
controlled digital stations.  I can remember this in the early 90s 
when APLINK was around.  Many hams feel that QSO's should be between 
two humans, not a human and a machine.  This bias against unattended 
operation was already present when Pactor III was introduced.  Had 
the bandwidth used, been commensurate with the number is users I 
don't think PACTOR would have the poor reputation that it does 
today.  Its really not a technical issue as much as it is a public 
relations issue.  Why is there no SCS presence at Dayton and why is 
there not a Winlink or PACTOR forum at Dayton?  The answer can be 
found in the way that unattended stations using Pactor were 
deployed.  I am not sure what it will take to correct this, but the 
damage has been done.


>In the ARRL's defense, when they looked at WinLink at their Board 
>Meeting, there
>was nothing else on the technology front that could do what WinLink 
>was doing.
>And until PSKMail came out, there WAS NOTHING to equal WinLink.


Reply via email to