On Tuesday 05 April 2005 20:17, WI8W wrote:
> Sorry, I agree that Winlink is actually a software based system. What I
> was referring to in my post is that the equipment being adopted and
> promoted by the ARRL to transmit that data is a PACTOR III based piece
> of hardware manufactured by SCS . This equipment is what most
> ARES/RACES groups are adopting at the encouragement of the ARRL.
>
> These are the units that I have encountered on the bands interfering
> with my communications. These are the people the ARRL is in bed with.
>
> http://www.scs-ptc.com/news.html
Since SCS GmbH (Germany) is the only maker of Pactor-3 capable hardware it is
a little bit unfair to say that someone is "in bed" with them. They are the
sole supplier if one wants to use Pactor-2 or -3, there is simply no
alternative.
<opinion>
Pactor in it's whole is a fantastic system and has brought a lot of fun and
possibilities to amateur radio.
And Pactor-3? As much as I understand the need for faster and more reliable
links in commercial applications, I hate to see 2.4kHz wasted for such
mundane tasks. For amateur use Pactor-1 or -2 are absolutely sufficient. From
a technical point of view Pactor-3 is a neat feat, developed by radio
amateurs, something which was common many years back (developing new
transmission methods).
Further I think systems like Winlink, cruisemail etc. are really abused, as
many of it's users are not licensed but are using amateur frequencies.
As so often - it's not the hardware nor it's maker which is 'bad', it's the
system that has been built with it (Winlink et al). I just hate to see these
automated systems clobber my CW or RTTY or PSK31 qso.
</opinion>
73,
Ekki, DF4OR
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|