Sorry to both of you. In the last week my mind has been elsewhere after my check up with my cancer doctor. Really need testing to be sure but right now he thinks that it may have return. But to answer both. No it is not needed. And if I may add that I only use it when connected to a BBS. Makes things a lot faster.
I for one can't see using P3 for kb to kb QSO. Again I can't type that fast to keep up with the flow. But let's not just pick on pactor. What about RTTY? It seems that a lot will (for lack of a better work) *bitch* about anything 2 hz wider that a PSK signal. Now I Have only been a have since 1968 and still learning. But I don't recall all of this happening 10 or more years ago. John, W0JAB At 03:09 PM 5/11/2010, you wrote: >John, I asked you the same question, but you did not answer mine. :-( > >Just as I thought, the only reason to allow Pactor-III on 60m is for Winlink's >benefit. Let's file comments to the FCC to allow any modes 500 Hz wide or less >so at least 4 or 5 stations can use the channel for QSO and Emcomm instead of >Pactor-III taking over the entire channel for Winlink mailboxes. > >If you don't comment, you might wish you had! > >73 - Skip KH6TY > > > >John Becker, WØJAB wrote: >> >> >>At 06:27 PM 5/10/2010, you wrote: >>>Another question was whether Pactor III's bandwidth was really necessary for >>>live keyboard to keyboard QSOs. I guess that was an anti-Pactor III >>>question, but that one also never got answered. >> >>Jim to answer that I really would have to say that >>for keyboard to keyboard I can't really recall using >>P3 for a QSO. Just mailbox operation. >> >>Got to remember that P3 may be a bit wide but it's >>so fast that a MBO op is over with real fast. > > >
<<inline: 18327ff.jpg>>
