Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Jose A. Amador]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

> Hi Jose,
> 
> Happy New Year to you and your family. 

Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list).

> As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought
> out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with
> a special addon PCB so that it can take PACTOR 1 modeand I followed
> all the firmware upgrades up to 8.1 I think. It is now in the basement
> somewhere so it is not handy for me to check. But as I said before it
> was always a lousy PACTOR controller (probably it had a bad modem
> design because even in HF packet it performed badly.

I did never own a KAM, but a friend of mine owned one of the early ones.
He always used it on RTTY, but I began experimenting with that "packet 
thing" when I visited him then...

Packet on HF...required a LOT of patience. Seems I achieved it (I know 
quite a few that did not...), as I spent some 5 years of HF packet 
sysop, and then, some other six or seven in pactor.

In packet, a single erroneous bit trashes the frame. Fading, sparks, 
collissions, all of that made it too easy to generate a retry. For some 
time, I ran my homebrew linear (about 400 watts out) to keep the link to 
the US. Really, not affordable, it cooked a final tank that was quite OK 
for SSB or CW, but not for packet. I had to rebuild that pi-network.

I could do the same in pactor2 with only 25 watts, not only to the 
neighborhood, but also to Africa. So, actually, the pactor 2 and 3 
modulation schemes are good for low powers.

Where is the key to it? The protocol. Using ARQ plus FEC (convolutional 
code), data interleaving and block codes allows to recover frames that 
packet layer one would lose. It is similar to what CD's and digital 
broadcasting uses nowadays. In retrospective, packet radio layer one 
belongs to the dark ages.

Could it be changed? Yes, AX.25 specification only deals with layers 2 
and 3, and Q15X25 did it with some success. But in general, 
manufacturers did not innovate on this. I was not really aware of that 
back then, either.

What is missing on this scheme: bandwidth/speed negotiation, like pactor 
does to survive bad links. SCAMP failure is associated with its 
unability to negotiate the link.

> So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is
> superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO.

I have never got any addons to my SCS PTC-II. And the newer robust 
packet adittion also requires a RAM addition to 2 MB. I just have loaded 
the tiny38.pt2 firmware upgrade and it still works quite OK.

That is another example I did not mention: robust packet, using PSK 
instead of FSK. I don't know in detail the tricks they added to robust 
packet, but it would be interesting to dig and see (if that could be 
possible) what they did. But certainly, data modes require some coding 
tricks to survive the HF hostile environment (Olivia success is based on 
the Walsh code layer it uses), as has become usual nowadays for data 
transfers (keyboarding is something with a different twist, the simpler 
the better).

It was a mixture of sheer good luck and naiveness to get a raw Bell 103 
modem to work on the lower HF bands.

Maybe Kantronics Golay COULD have been better, but 300 baud is generally 
too much. And it never really became popular, with each manufacturer 
having its own "pet project", that did not achieve the numbers required 
to have an impact on the community. PA0R comments about PSK speeds in 
PSKMail seem to agree with what is well known: PSK63 works, PSK125 
somehow, but nowadays PSK250 has only a 60% success. On 10 meters and 
using a single propagated ray (as usually happens close to the MUF), I 
would not be  surprised to see that PSK1200 (or QPSK1200) would work as 
well.

> 73 de Demetre SV1UY

73,

Jose, CO2JA






__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Dave AA6YQ]

I have often made the distinction between Pactor III and Winlink, Demetre.
For example, see

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201

 

73,

 

 Dave, AA6YQ

 

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:28 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of
Pactor III
> by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether
or not
> the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
> characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging
in that
> one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically expand its
bandwidth
> to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of
other
> QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities,
Pactor III
> should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 73,
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, AA6YQ
Hi Dave,

This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now
you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a
start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who
intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ
filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that
PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear
anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they
always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone
else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators
never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before
transmitting.

Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic
FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS
etc. using PACTOR/PACKET or any other modes, work in a different way
and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been
beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Dave AA6YQ]

I'm familiar with and use both SetThreadPriority, QueryPerformanceCounter -
but Windows provides no way to guarantee that a process will receive service
within a specified limit. Try dragging around the Windows Task Manager, for
example; even the highest priority processes will be starved. Running
Windows in a virtual machine (e.g. VMWare) on Linux and running the protocol
engine directly on Linux could be a solution.

 

I have not pursued the Pactor spec or IP issues; you might ask Bob N4HY via
his email address in QRZ.com.

 

   73,

 

  Dave, AA6YQ

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:18 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

 

Dave,

 

I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of
priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting
(QueryPerformanceCounter) results in a level of accuracy more than adequate
for our needs.

 

Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is
protected but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about
the protocol is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3
argument.

 

This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all
modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be
developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands.

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 

From: Dave AA6YQ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  

 

2.   The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with
real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide

 

 

 

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of
Pactor III
> by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether
or not
> the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
> characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging
in that
> one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically  expand its
bandwidth
> to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of
other
> QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities,
Pactor III
> should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode.
> 
>  
> 
> 73,
> 
>  
> 
>   Dave, AA6YQ
Hi Dave,

This is just about the 1st time you spoke rationally and we agree. Now
you are not mixing up PACTOR I/II/III with Winlink2000 and this is a
start. I would also like to let you know that PACTOR operators who
intend to operate in PACTOR III mode, start their QSO with the 2.4 KHZ
filter in their radio and they are able to hear all the passband that
PACTOR III will eventually occupy when expanded. Hence they can hear
anyone else using the frequency. If they want to use PACTOR II they
always use their 500 HZ wide filter and they still can hear if anyone
else is using the frequency in their passband. So PACTOR III operators
never interfere anyone else's QSO because they can hear them before
transmitting.

Automatic or semiautomatic Winlink2000 PMBOs and other automatic
FORWARDING and not FORWARDING HF Mailboxes, HF to VHF/UHF GATEWAYS
etc. using PACTOR/PACKET  or any other modes, work in a different way
and I am not going to go back to it because this matter has been
beaten to death already. People get sick of hearing about it all the time.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Simon Brown]

Dave,

I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of 
priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter) 
results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs.

Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is protected 
but cannot find any proof about this. If the documentation about the protocol 
is insufficient then this adds fuel to the anti-Pactor 3 argument.

This is for a very serious IARU presentation which aims to ensure that all 
modes which can be used on our bands are properly documented and can be 
developed royalty-free for use in the amateur bands.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dave AA6YQ 


  2.   The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with 
real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
   

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Jack Chomley]

At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote:

>I would argue that the fuel for this is the 
>irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in 
>unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect 
>whether or not the frequency is locally clear – 
>not some inherent flaw or suboptimal 
>characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III 
>is a bit challenging in that one must ensure 
>that one’s modem does not dynamically  expand 
>its bandwidth to exploit improved conditions 
>unless the full bandwidth is clear of other 
>QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their 
>responsibilities, Pactor III should not be any 
>more problematic than any other digital mode.
>
>
>
>73,
>
>
>
>   Dave, AA6YQ


Its not hard to stop the SCS Modem from using 
Pactor 3. You just set MYLevel parameter to 2, 
modem will then only operate Pactor 1 or 2. Pactor 3 is locked out.
Problem is SCS have the default set for use of 
Pactor 3 comms if desired, which works for the 
first 20 connects, after that you buy the licence 
from SCS and its coded to the modem serial 
number, where I believe originally it was coded to your callsign.

73s

Jack VK4JRC

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Dave AA6YQ]

I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of Pactor III
by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether or not
the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
characterics. In attended operation, Pactor III is a bit challenging in that
one must ensure that one's modem does not dynamically  expand its bandwidth
to exploit improved conditions unless the full bandwidth is clear of other
QSOs. But as long as operators fulfill their responsibilities, Pactor III
should not be any more problematic than any other digital mode.

 

73,

 

  Dave, AA6YQ

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

 

The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a
desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC
would never ban a specific product.

 

73,

 

John

KD6OZH

 

- Original Message - 

From: Demetre SV1UY <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  

To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC

Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
> jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
> unavoidable evil...
> 
> Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
> in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
> Z-80 Pactor Controller.
> 
> PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
> general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
AEA 
> did.
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---

Hi Jose,

Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics
and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10
years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at
the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they
never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software
writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal
unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his
program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation).
This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves
PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure
if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther
failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not
implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do
with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs
complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do
the same with other software writers.

I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and
contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be
great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a
soundcard program, but I think they can't.

If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3
(and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try
and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR
2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product!

At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as
PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all.

Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I
like PSKmail much more than NBEMS.

Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave
a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF
propagation is concerned.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Leigh L Klotz, Jr.]

RX only wouldn't need to worry about turnaround times.. Hmmm
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:23 pm, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two 
> challenges:
>
> 1. The documentation provided is insufficient
>
> 2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with 
> real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
>
> #1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2 
> reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either 
> the application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other 
> realtime OS (small user base), or the application must run on a 
> dedicated processor in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user 
> base).
>
> Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not 
> be motivated by a dare alone.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
>>  jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
>>  unavoidable evil...
>>
>>  Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor
>>  in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the 
>> SCS
>>  Z-80 Pactor Controller.
>>
>>  PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in
>>  general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
> AEA
>>  did.
>>
>>  Jose, CO2JA
>>
>>  ---
>
> Hi Jose,
>
> Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics
> and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10
> years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at
> the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they
> never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software
> writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal
> unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his
> program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 
> implementation).
> This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves
> PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure
> if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther
> failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not
> implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do
> with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs
> complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do
> the same with other software writers.
>
> I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and
> contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be
> great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a
> soundcard program, but I think they can't.
>
> If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3
> (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try
> and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR
> 2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial 
> product!
>
> At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as
> PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all.
>
> Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I
> like PSKmail much more than NBEMS.
>
> Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave
> a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF
> propagation is concerned.
>
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>
> 

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Dave AA6YQ]

Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two
challenges:

 

1.   The documentation provided is insufficient

 

2.   The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with
real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide

 

#1 might be overcome by an intense reverse engineering effort, but #2
reduces the total available market to a point where #1 is moot: either the
application must be written to run natively on Linux or some other realtime
OS (small user base), or the application must run on a dedicated processor
in a relatively expensive outboard box (small user base).

 

Most people smart enough to write good software are smart enough to not be
motivated by a dare alone.

 

73,

 

 Dave, AA6YQ

 

 

 

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

 

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
> jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
> unavoidable evil...
> 
> Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
> in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
> Z-80 Pactor Controller.
> 
> PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
> general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
AEA 
> did.
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---

Hi Jose,

Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics
and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10
years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at
the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they
never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software
writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal
unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his
program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation).
This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves
PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure
if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther
failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not
implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do
with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs
complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do
the same with other software writers.

I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and
contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be
great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a
soundcard program, but I think they can't.

If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3
(and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try
and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR
2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product!

At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as
PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all.

Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I
like PSKmail much more than NBEMS.

Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave
a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF
propagation is concerned.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[John B. Stephensen]

The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a 
desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would 
never ban a specific product.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  - Original Message - 
  From: Demetre SV1UY 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes


  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
  >
  > 
  > I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
  > jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
  > unavoidable evil...
  > 
  > Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
  > in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
  > Z-80 Pactor Controller.
  > 
  > PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
  > general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
  AEA 
  > did.
  > 
  > Jose, CO2JA
  > 
  > ---

  Hi Jose,

  Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics
  and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10
  years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at
  the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they
  never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software
  writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal
  unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his
  program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation).
  This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves
  PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure
  if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther
  failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not
  implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do
  with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs
  complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do
  the same with other software writers.

  I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and
  contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be
  great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a
  soundcard program, but I think they can't.

  If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3
  (and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try
  and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR
  2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product!

  At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as
  PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all.

  Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I
  like PSKmail much more than NBEMS.

  Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave
  a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF
  propagation is concerned.

  73 de Demetre SV1UY



   

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
> jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
> unavoidable evil...
> 
> Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
> in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
> Z-80 Pactor Controller.
> 
> PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
> general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
AEA 
> did.
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 
> ---


Hi Jose,

Going back to the facts I forgot to mention that even if Kantronics
and some other makers tried to reverse engineer PACTOR 1 more than 10
years ago, as some seem to support in this list and also claiming at
the same time that PACTOR 1 was OPEN (which might have been), they
never managed to do it properly. Don't forget that a British software
writer (G4BMK) managed to implement PACTOR 1 properly using a terminal
unit, not a sound card, and in a DOS computer (I have bought his
program BMKmulti and it works as good as SCS's PACTOR 1 implementation).
This is probably the reason why SCS decided to keep to themselves
PACTOR 2 and 3 and not to license it to anyone, although I am not sure
if anyone ever asked for a license of PACTOR 2 and 3 following ther
failure to implement PACTOR 1. If the best companies could not
implement properly PACTOR 1 can you imagine what a mess they would do
with PACTOR 2, never mind 3. So I cannot see why some fellow amateurs
 complain against SCS keeping their code to themselves. They do not do
the same with other software writers.

I dare and urge the software writers if they are any good to try and
contact SCS and ask if they can implement PACTOR 2 and 3. It would be
great if they could offer the efficiency of PACTOR 2 even in a
soundcard program, but I think they can't.

If SCS is such a bad company and they will not license PACTOR 2 or 3
(and I personally do not blame them for doing so) why can't they try
and write an ARQ SOundcard Program that can go as fast as even PACTOR
2? Never mind PACTOR 3, which many people class as a commercial product!

At the moment I can only see PSKmail that performs only as good as
PACTOR 1, thanks to Per PA0R, which is better than nothing at all.

Also I saw lately NBEMS trying to do the same as PSKmail although I
like PSKmail much more than NBEMS.

Both can be called "The poor man's Winlink2000", but really they leave
a lot to be desired as far as speed and good behaviour in bad HF
propagation is concerned.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
> jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
> unavoidable evil...
> 
> Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
> in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
> Z-80 Pactor Controller.
> 
> PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
> general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as
AEA 
> did.
> 
> Jose, CO2JA
> 

Hi Jose,

Happy New Year to you and your family. 

As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought
out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with
a special addon PCB so that it can take PACTOR 1 modeand I followed
all the firmware upgrades up to 8.1 I think. It is now in the basement
somewhere so it is not handy for me to check. But as I said before it
was always a lousy PACTOR controller (probably it had a bad modem
design because even in HF packet it performed badly.

So in the end I had to buy an SCS Controller because as you know it is
superior in PACTOR and in PACKET RADIO.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

P.S. What happened with this petition that was attempting to bring
digital modes into the 19th century? Does anyone knows

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Sholto Fisher]

I fully agree. I have no problem with the mode or modulation. I wish I could
run Pactor-2 cheaply!
It is just the Pactor-3 "bomb" from unattended Winlink machines that
explodes over existing QSO's in the narrowband data areas that irritates me.

I am happy to put Jack's Pactor/Packet (kb-2-kb) spotting page up at
http://www.projectsandparts.com/pactor/
which if nothing else will give an indication of the amount of use of
keyboard-keyboard QSO's in these modes.

73 Sholto
KE7HPV



- Original Message - 
From: "Steinar Aanesland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes


>
> Sorry, but I have to ask;  What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ?
> It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble,
> NOT the net or system.
>
> Strange that this is so difficult to understand  after hundreds of
> debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :(
>
> LA5VNA
>
>
>
>
>
> Jose A. Amador skrev:
> >
> >
> > I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
> > jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
> > unavoidable evil...
> >
> > Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor
> > in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS
> > Z-80 Pactor Controller.
> >
> > PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in
> > general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA
> > did.
> >
> > Jose, CO2JA
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roger J. Buffington"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Well,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
> > >>> one.
> > >> You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you.
I
> > >> have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem
bent
> > >> upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that.
> > >> In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was
> > >> horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232
> > (my
> > >> first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also
> > used
> > >> to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.
> > >>
> > >> Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM
> > > units
> > >> lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I
> > >> mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for
> > > Pactor.
> > >>> As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they
did
> > >>> that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
> > >>> know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though
> > >> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American
company
> > >> the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I
> > >> think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather
> > > than
> > >> different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe
that
> > >> any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a
> > straight
> > >> license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS
> > > wants
> > >> to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken
> > >> about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.
> > >>
> > >> de Roger W6VZV
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
> > > not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
> > > wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
> > > not mean to offend you.
> > >
> > > Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I
> > > hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe.
> > >
> > > You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and
> > > every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better
> > > and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do
> > > your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world
> > > is supposed to be tolerant.
> > >
> > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
> > >
> > > P.S. enough said!!!
> >
> > __
> >
> > Participe en Universidad 2008.
> > 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> > Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
> > http://www.universidad2008.cu <http://www.universidad2008.cu>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Steinar Aanesland]

Sorry, but I have to ask;  What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ? 
It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble, 
NOT the net or system.

Strange that this is so difficult to understand  after hundreds of 
debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :(

LA5VNA





Jose A. Amador skrev:
>
>
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
> jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
> unavoidable evil...
>
> Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor
> in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS
> Z-80 Pactor Controller.
>
> PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in
> general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA
> did.
>
> Jose, CO2JA
>
> ---
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Roger J. Buffington"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well,
> >>>
> >>> I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
> >>> one.
> >> You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I
> >> have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent
> >> upon returning courtesy with bad manners. Please stop that.
> >> In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was
> >> horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 
> (my
> >> first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also 
> used
> >> to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.
> >>
> >> Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM
> > units
> >> lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I
> >> mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for
> > Pactor.
> >>> As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
> >>> that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
> >>> know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though
> >> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company
> >> the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I
> >> think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather
> > than
> >> different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that
> >> any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a 
> straight
> >> license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS
> > wants
> >> to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken
> >> about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.
> >>
> >> de Roger W6VZV
> >>
> >
> > Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
> > not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
> > wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
> > not mean to offend you.
> >
> > Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I
> > hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe.
> >
> > You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and
> > every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better
> > and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do
> > your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world
> > is supposed to be tolerant.
> >
> > 73 de Demetre SV1UY
> >
> > P.S. enough said!!!
>
> __
>
> Participe en Universidad 2008.
> 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
> http://www.universidad2008.cu 
>
>  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Jose A. Amador]

I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC 
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an 
unavoidable evil...

Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor 
in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS 
Z-80 Pactor Controller.

PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in 
general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA 
did.

Jose, CO2JA

---

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>>
>>>  Well,
>>>
>>>  I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
>>>  one.
>> You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you.  I 
>> have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent 
>> upon returning courtesy with bad manners.  Please stop that.
>> In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit.  Used it for GTOR.  It was 
>> horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my 
>> first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used 
>> to own.  GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.
>>
>> Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM
> units 
>> lacked memory-arq.  OK, fine.  My experience with the unit, as I 
>> mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for
> Pactor.
>>>  As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
>>>  that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
>>>  know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though
>> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company 
>> the name of which escapes me.  They were not a business success, and I 
>> think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather
> than 
>> different modems using licensed Pactor protocol.  I do not believe that 
>> any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight 
>> license with SCS for Pactor.  This leads to the inference that SCS
> wants 
>> to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees.  I may be mistaken 
>> about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.
>>
>> de Roger W6VZV
>>
> 
> Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
> not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
> wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
> not mean to offend you.
> 
> Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I
> hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe.
> 
> You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and
> every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better
> and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do
> your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world
> is supposed to be tolerant.
> 
> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
> 
> P.S. enough said!!!


__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes - Source code and detailed specifications

[f6cte]

Hello Simon,

> There is so much work involved in writing a fool-proof program with 
>a good user interface that having to also write the encoding / 
>decoding interface 

RR for all. Yes I understand and it's true that detailed 
specifications + source code as Peter have done with PSK31 was the 
best. But we are not all perfect...

I hope, however, that we will be able to understand the JT65 code and 
so we will have the satisfaction to have gain in knowledge.

73
Patrick





> There is so much work involved in writing a fool-proof program with 
a good 
> user interface that having to also write the encoding / decoding 
interface 
> would make sure projects unfeasible for a single programmer who 
codes in his 
> spare time.
> 
> Simon HB9DRV
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>
>  - Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com>>
>  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
>
> > snip< Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one
> > American company the name of which escapes me.
>
>  It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units.
>
>  Charles, N5PVL

Yes, that is the one.  The hardware was mostly SCS-built as I recall, 
but they did try to differentiate the product somehow or other.  In any 
case they were the only company ever to license Pactor protocol from SCS 
if I remember correctly.

de Roger W6VZV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Charles Brabham]

- Original Message - 
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes


> snip<
> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company
> the name of which escapes me.

It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units.

Charles, N5PVL





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11/1201 - Release Date: 12/28/2007 
11:51 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Rick]

Demetre,

You really need to end this conjecture about Pactor unless you have some 
new information that Pactor is proprietary like Pactor 2 and Pactor 3. 
If you check on the internet, you will find that Pactor is an open 
protocol, while P2 and P3 "use proprietary technology controlled by one 
German company, SCS Corp." Source: Wikipedia, which may not always be 
definitive, can be relatively non-biased.

Here is hoping for a wonderful new year for all.

73,

Rick, KV9U




Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>> Well Roger,
>>
>> Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these
>> companies are not worth a penny. 
>>
>> As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You
>> see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can
>> accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show
>> any courtesy at all.
>>
>> Enjoy your weekend OM.
>>
>> 73 de Demetre SV1UY
>>
>> 

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments 
> on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may 
> be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would 
> have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of 
> success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open 
> it up for cross platform use.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

Hi Rick,

For PSKmail information you can check
http://www.freelists.org/archives/pskmail/ and perhaps it is a good
idea if you also register there so you can follow the guys that are
involved with it. Per PA0R has done a marvelous job with it and he
uses FLDIGI as a modem, but you probably know all this. Per's code is
open and anyone can implement it in any operating system, although he
has a zip file and you can run PSKmail even in Windows with a Linux
emulator, so you do not need to have a dual boot system. You just boot
in your Windows OS and then run his Linux emulator as a Windows
program where you can run PSKmail. Up to now they use PSK-250 and
there are already a few experimental American servers online.

This is a freeware soundcard program and I think it has the potential
of reaching PACTOR-2 in a few years according to the pace they are
going. Don't forget that really it is a one man's job and he gets
nothing out of it, so it is marvelous what he has done, and more
marvelous that he allows anyone to touch his code. Per PA0R is
probably more interested in seen PSKmail progressing than his own
personal glory. He is a true Radio Ham. This is unlike other code
writers who although they allow everyone to use their program, they
keep their code to themselves. Of course it is everyone's right to
protect their code and I do not blame anyone here, I am just stating a
fact.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> >
> 
> >
> >  Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
> >  not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
> >  wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
> >  not mean to offend you.
> 
> No worry, Demetre.  You did not upset me.  I was merely pointing out 
> that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome.  I assume that you 
> will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention.
> 
> You have not once shown that any of my points were in error.  You 
> mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently)
 for 
> a refutation of someone's logical argument.  On the other hand, you are 
> clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several 
> persons on this forum have pointed that out at length.
> 
> On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that 
> ever happened.  I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA 
> (until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they 
> frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were 
> reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it.  HAL did 
> the same thing.  So did Kantronics.  This reverse-engineering led to 
> some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor 
> hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could 
> support Pactor II.  If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was
with an 
> SCS modem.
> 
> OK, signing off for the weekend.  This thread has become repetitive and 
> tiresome.  Moderator, no need to point that out to me.
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

Well Roger,

Reverse engineering is very immoral and if they did that these
companies are not worth a penny. 

As for proving me wrong in all cases, I think the exact opposite. You
see, it is not my fault if you cannot see the truth. All you can
accept are your own ideas and no further. I'm afraid this is not show
any courtesy at all.

Enjoy your weekend OM.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Rick]

Demetre,

It is possible that SCS did license Pactor at a later time. It seems to 
me that other companies tried to implement the memory ARQ function with 
limited success.  This feature is not necessary for Pactor to operate, 
but it does help greatly with weak signals. However, if a company 
licenses a product, they normally get some kind of source code or 
something of value that makes their product equal to their competition 
they are buying it from. And there is no question whatsoever that the 
AEA, HAL, and KAM products Pactor implementation simply did not work as 
well as SCS's.

The only company here in the U.S. that I am sure had a license from SCS 
was Gwyn Reedy, W1BEL's, Paccomm Company. I think I recall that he 
purchased the boards, but at least the firmware from SCS. He used 
different packaging and a minor feature or two to try and differentiate 
his product, but discovered that he could not really compete and 
eventually discontinued production and sales.

Sadly, Gwyn was killed in a vehicular accident only a year ago:(  He was 
a major promoter of packet radio and equipment.

The reason that companies could duplicate Pactor without a license is 
that initially it was more of an open standard intended for ham radio 
use. The principals of SCS are hams. It was not until Pactor 2 and then 
Pactor 3 that it became a highly protected product. Even so, I have a 
letter in my files, which I can not seem to find at the moment, but I 
think I still have someplace, from Bill Henry at HAL discussing this 
issue as I was concerned about it before buying the HAL P-38 modem. This 
was before the invention of P2.

Pactor modes do not have any miracle abilities for weak signals. What 
they do have is the ability to combine a number of enhancements in one 
protocol to make it work at a highly optimized level under varying 
conditions. Nothing like that exists with sound cards because thus far 
there has been no interest by those who have the ability to write this 
kind of software to do so. Some of us have asked and they have said 
their focus is on keyboard chat modes to the exclusion of high speed 
messaging.

For weak. error free signals, I have been very impressed with the new 
FAE 400 mode and this is the first sound card mode that can work better 
than Pactor in weak signals and with similar bandwidth (< 500 Hz) but 
not quite as fast under better conditions since it can not change 
speeds. The wide FAE mode (faster baud rate and faster throughput) can 
not compete well with weaker signals and the width is a problem when you 
also consider the throughput.

Pactor 2 is still the best narrow mode protocol at this time. Pactor 3 
is much the same except intended for commercial channels where you have 
the space to widen out tremendously after the initial < 500 Hz 
negotiation to determine if the other station is a P1, P2, or P3 station 
and then what kind of conditions are present.

I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments 
on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may 
be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would 
have to run natively on Windows. Even then there is no guarantee of 
success, but I know that I would be very interested if someone did open 
it up for cross platform use.

73,

Rick, KV9U






Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1
> definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol.
> There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.
>
> That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with
> PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a
> mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and
> only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other
> spectrum users! hi hi hi!!!
>
> As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious
> american company does reverse engineering.
>
> Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in
> PACTOR 1 Rick.
>
> Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never
> mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with
> a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like
> PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. 
>
> Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting
> there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best
> they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is
> the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more
> with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's
> PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is
> such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these
> systems, unless if this has changed by now.
>
> Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will
> have more because it is a 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>

>
>  Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
>  not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
>  wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
>  not mean to offend you.

No worry, Demetre.  You did not upset me.  I was merely pointing out 
that your lack of courtesy was becoming tiresome.  I assume that you 
will straighten out now that it has been called to your attention.

You have not once shown that any of my points were in error.  You 
mistake making an ad hominem attack (which you do quite frequently)  for 
a refutation of someone's logical argument.  On the other hand, you are 
clearly wrong about numerous statements that you have made, and several 
persons on this forum have pointed that out at length.

On the issue of AEA licensing Pactor from SCS, no, I don't believe that 
ever happened.  I owned an AEA controller for most of the life of AEA 
(until shortly before they were acquired by Timewave) and they 
frequently sent bulletins to their users to the effect that they were 
reverse-engineering Pactor because they had not licensed it.  HAL did 
the same thing.  So did Kantronics.  This reverse-engineering led to 
some pretty lousy Pactor 1 QSOs, (incompatible protocols and poor 
hardware) and that is also why no TNC other than an SCS TNC could 
support Pactor II.  If you made a Pactor II link you KNEW it was with an 
SCS modem.

OK, signing off for the weekend.  This thread has become repetitive and 
tiresome.  Moderator, no need to point that out to me.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> 
> >  Well,
> >
> >  I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
> >  one.
> 
> You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you.  I 
> have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent 
> upon returning courtesy with bad manners.  Please stop that.
> In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit.  Used it for GTOR.  It was 
> horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my 
> first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used 
> to own.  GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.
> 
> Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM
units 
> lacked memory-arq.  OK, fine.  My experience with the unit, as I 
> mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for
Pactor.
> >
> >  As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
> >  that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
> >  know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though
> 
> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company 
> the name of which escapes me.  They were not a business success, and I 
> think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather
than 
> different modems using licensed Pactor protocol.  I do not believe that 
> any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight 
> license with SCS for Pactor.  This leads to the inference that SCS
wants 
> to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees.  I may be mistaken 
> about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
not mean to offend you.

Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I
hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe.

You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and
every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better
and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do
your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world
is supposed to be tolerant.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

P.S. enough said!!!

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[dalite01]

-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:08 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying 
degrees of success.

de Roger W6VZV

*

Well, I guess that explains why all 3 of the PK-232s that I have with 7.2
firmware have a Pactor Licesne Number on the ROM.  I guess they actually
went as far as proividing a individual license number for ther reverse
engineering project.  

Sure fooled me, but I still prefer the Pactor III in my SCS Controller
Ain't nothing like the real thing.
I enjoyed using it last night to monitor some stateside Keyboard to Keyboard
operation. 

And, of course, of the SCS Controllers currently in place or projected for
our small ruaral Georgia county in the 911 center, 2 hospitals, Federal Law
Enforcemnt Training center (2 units), local PMBO, Enviromental health, Red
Cross, and at least 3 individual end users - Gee, that is 11 Pactor III
licensed controllers currently in operation, purchased or budgeted for in a
relatively small South Georgia county.  There may be a half dozen more on
the plan for the coming year...I sure am glad that the SCS Scourge isn't
growing...

David
KD4NUE

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Well,
>
>  I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
>  one.

You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you.  I 
have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent 
upon returning courtesy with bad manners.  Please stop that.
In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit.  Used it for GTOR.  It was 
horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 (my 
first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also used 
to own.  GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone.

Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM units 
lacked memory-arq.  OK, fine.  My experience with the unit, as I 
mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for Pactor.
>
>  As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
>  that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I
>  know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though

Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company 
the name of which escapes me.  They were not a business success, and I 
think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather than 
different modems using licensed Pactor protocol.  I do not believe that 
any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a straight 
license with SCS for Pactor.  This leads to the inference that SCS wants 
to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees.  I may be mistaken 
about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> 
> >  Hi Rick,
> >
> >  Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
> >  1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
> >  protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.
> 
> Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless 
> I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units.
> 
> >  As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious
> >  american company does reverse engineering.
> 
> AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying 
> degrees of success.
> 
> de Roger W6VZV
>

Well,

I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen one.

As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did
that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I know
that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though and because of the bad
implementation of the above companies they decided not to do the same
with PACTOR-2 and 3. Also I don't believe that in a lawful country
such as USA any revers engineering would take place my serious
companies unless if Kantronics, AEA, MFJ are pirate companies, which I
do not believe.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Roger J. Buffington]

Demetre SV1UY wrote:

>  Hi Rick,
>
>  Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
>  1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
>  protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.

Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless 
I am mistaken neither did the Kantronics units.

>  As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious
>  american company does reverse engineering.

AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse-engineered Pactor, with varying 
degrees of success.

de Roger W6VZV

[digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes

[Demetre SV1UY]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually 
> fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure
that 
> the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to 
> have this feature. That is why they worked better between SCS modems 
> than between other manufacturers products, even between the SCS modem 
> and other manufacturers.
> 
Hi Rick,

Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR 1
definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR protocol.
There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.

That is the main reason why PACTOR is a QRP mode!!! Especially with
PACTOR 2 people have managed to access a mailbox in Germany from a
mobile station in Australia on 20 meters, a short mobile aerial and
only 16 mWatts of power. Some QRM they would cause to the other
spectrum users! hi hi hi!!!

As for licensing yes it was licensed. I do not think that any serious
american company does reverse engineering.

> For quite some time my main software/hardware mix was an AEA CP-1 with 
> BMKMulti. Crude by today's standards but worked well for RTTY, CW,
AMTOR.
> 
> Instead of upgrading when he added Pactor, I unfortunately sold all my 
> digital equipment to buy the HAL P-38 modem which turned out to be a 
> complete disaster. The HAL P mode (an attempt to simulate the Pactor 
> mode) was pathetic with dropping what appeared to be a solid link, etc. 
> They tried many software updates, but nothing improved.
> 

Pity you sold it because BMKmulti performs as good as an SCS Modem in
PACTOR 1 Rick.

> Clover II, which was a nice mode, could not work deep into the noise
and 
> so was very limited. Even when I used to try and chat with Ray Petit, 
> W7GHM, the inventor of CCW, Clover and Clover II, with marginal link 
> conditions, Clover II would rarely work well. If we had had PSK31, 
> MFSK16, FAE400, etc. like we do today, our chats would have been
fine as 
> signals were clearly copyable by ear.

Well as you see in todays modes, nothing comes close to PACTOR-2 never
mind PACTOR-3's performance. Not even the military modes because with
a little noise they lose the link. They cannot be FAST and ROBUST like
PACTOR-3. The military ones also need more than 3 KHZ bandwidth. 

Only perhaps PSKmail and FLARQ HF Radio e-mail Systems are getting
there slowly, but their speed leaves a lot to be desired. The best
they can do at the moment is perhaps 200 bps using PSK-250, which is
the same as PACTOR-1, whereus PACTOR-2 can go up to 800 bps and more
with realtime compression. I wouldn't even dare comparing PSKmail's
PSK250 with PACTOR-3! Their next step would be PSK-500?? if there is
such a beast. Also there is still no memory ARQ built in these
systems, unless if this has changed by now.

Anyway PSKmail has quite a few followers in USA and I hope it will
have more because it is a soundcard mode and anyone can get on it very
easily.

That will not keep the anti semi-automatic guys happy, but such is
life I'm afraid.

This is one more reason for everybody to complain against RM-11392
petition to your FCC. Unless if you want to go back to the Medieval
Times for Digital communications in the Ham bands.

> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U

73 de Demetre SV1UY