[RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments

[psussman@pactor.com]

Joe raises an `excellent point. When PACTOR-1 was released by SCS,
the protocol was made freely available. AEA and MFJ made drastic
cuts to the specifications (esp. in the relm of A/D converters)
while others used software short-cuts that undermined the effectiveness
of the mode.

HAL sure noticed that when they released CLOVER and remember G-TOR,
that 'enhanced knockoff' of PACTOR-1. So when SCS released PACTOR-2
they did NOT make the protocol freely available. After all their
PACTOR-1 reputation had been tarnished by 'cheap knockoffs' of their
freely released protocol. Can you blame them?

The protocol is intellectual property and 'releasing' it without
insuring safeguards against illegal copying or distorted (cheap)
reproduction by others must first be addressed. 

Anyone who wants to monitor G-TOR, PACTOR, CLOVER, PACKET, etc
need only invest in the manufacturer's hardware/software. It is
sure a lot better and cheaper than building your own lab.

And.. as I mentioned earlier, requiring the manufacturer to make 
available (at little or no charge) units capable of monitoring only
is one potential solution. But there must be a balance between
supporting a mode and remaining solvent. Hey, shades of napster and
other licensed software.

Comments??

Phil Sussman
Clayton, Ohio

---------------

Quoting "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik at subich.com>:

> 
> 
> 
> > From: Bill Coleman
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
> >
> > > A question for the gentleman who wanted all digimode software to be
> > > "freely available":
> >
> > That won't fly. It's the PROTOCOLS that need to be freely available.
> > They need to be published and available to anyone who wants to
> > implement.
> >
> 
> No ... protocols do not do a bit of good if a vast majority of amateurs
> are not software developers with access to many thousands of dollars
> in development tools.  With analog protocols (voice, CW and even RTTY)
> building a relatively simple direct conversion receiver (or PTT TU)
> would enable any amateur to demodulate and decode any signal he could
> hear.  That is not possible with many of the new digital systems.
> 
> 73,
> 
>     ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>