RadioBanter - View Single Post - Just exactly what is the "Problem" with Pactor

August 21st 05, 04:36 PM

wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
The concern/fear/issues being raised by
many are that the ARRL "regulation
by bandwidth" proposal will result in
practically all of the HF CW/data
bands being "over-run by Winlink/PactorIII
robots," that those stations
don't "play nice" with real-time human to
human modes, that PactorIII takes
a lot of bandwidth for a non-proportional
gain in throughput, and that
Winlink and PactorIII are closed, proprietary
modes that are only available
through the purchase of some rather expensive,
sole-source hardware and software.

I'd state the first part somewhat differently:

One concern is that the proposed rules would/could
unleash "robot" stations of all kinds anywhere in the
non-voice/image parts of the bands. There would be
no way for the typical PSK31, RTTY or Morse Code
operator to know they were on a frequency used by
a "robot" until the robot fired up on top of their
QSO.

How is that different from anything else In a strnge place I don't know
when I start an FM simplex QSO that this area uses that simplex freq
for packet links

and why is it a problem I thought CW always got through, yet it needs
protecting from Pactor?

Assuming the robot listens before sending well it looks like anything
else I hear about in HF

A human operator who fires up on top of an existing
QSO can be in violation of the rules. What gives
robots an exception?

Only if the Human operators does not know, if they check then well how
is this different from a Human operator smash a distant low power
signal not reaching his attenna

PactorIII and Winlink are indeed proprietary, which
goes against the grain of open-sourcing and freeware.
Compare those modes to, say, PSK31, with its wide-open
software and hardware.

To most of us there's nothing wrong with hams using
propietary software or hardware - until it becomes
an endorsed standard. IOW, 'buy this particular
piece of hardware and software from this particular
company or you cannot play the game' doesn't sit well.

What is so specail about the coding thatham cold not mange to make
something that does essentcaily the same thing?

There seem to be rather widely held views that
"robot" stations that "don't
play nice" with conventional human-human modes
should be restricted to
limited sub-bands because otherwise they will
cause considerable interference problems,

Yup. Makes sense, too.

why?

that they don't need to be able to take over huge
swaths of the bands, and that closed, proprietary systems
should not be
"pushed" in the ham bands. (conversely, the feeling seems
to be widespread
that modes used in the ham bands should be "open source" - both h/w and s/w)

Exactly.

It is my understanding that Winlink has become the method of
choice for some folks with boats to send and receive their
email. This raises the question of commercial/pecuniary content
as well - how are such things filtered?

Add to the mix that it's ARRL pushing the Winlink/PactorIII
thing and you can see the opposition rising...

What's your take on such 'robots' on HF, Carl? Should they
be treated just like any other station, or should they have
some special restrictions based on their unattended nature?

Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the
purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific
providers?

73 de Jim, N2EY