Rev: 30-MAR-2024
PACTOR AND 2024
Rev: 30-MAR-2024
PACTOR AND 2024
What does this mean? Frankly .. a degradation of narrowband digital activity. You see PACTOR-4 will override a narrower bandwidth signal. The 2.5KHz bandwidth will clobber narrowband signals, like 500 Hz and below. Unfortunately, the narrower signals will have degraded performance .. and the average Ham will only see that range and sensitivity will disappear -- and sadly will wonder why.
The average Ham doesn't really use PACTOR anymore -- except for MBX (mailbox) operation -- RACES and the like. The TNC's are expensive and many modes (RTTY, AMTOR, ETC.) have disappeared from the TNC menu. Most Hams that use digital have migrated to FT-4 or FT-8 or any number of 'free' modes.
PACTOR is not free and a keyoard to keyboard QSO on PACTOR has become really rare. That's the sad truth.
73,
That's all for today
Rev: 15-AUG-2023
PACTOR ARQ STILL LIVES IN 2023?
Hello Phil, de Lee NR5G. I have been active on Pactor since it was first released on the ham bands. I was saddened when I saw the mode migrate to basically ALL MAILBOX mode by many users.. Store and forward is nice but so is IDLE CHAT. There is a small group of us who make a habit of hanging out at present on 14.088.0 when the freq is not being used for Emcom testing. Although most of us monitor in VarAC mode, it is not uncommon for a station to call CQ in Pactor and one of us who recognizes the Pactor code will make a quick switch to Pactor from VarAC mode and gladly take on idle chat. Most of us use the older SCS PTCII series modems and a few run the SCS PTCIIIusb and one station runs the Dragon 7400. A few of the stations run the ALPHA4.0 software, some run the Simple32Gold and a few of us run the unsupported NcWinPTC software for idle chat.
I just wanted to let you know that Pactor "idle chat" has not yet totally died out. When you have some free time in the shack you might put out a CQ call in VarAC mode or in Pactor unproto mode. You might be surprised who you might get back in return.
Our little gang uses 14.088 usb as a sort of "watering hole" where as when we are not busy doing other things with out HF rigs, we tend to set up either VarAC software or a Pactor program. There are not many stations that we know of that are presently operating the old AeA PK-232 or the Kantronics ALL Mode hardware tncs which as you know are restricted to Pactor 1 operations as the license to operate P2 and P3 is restricted to hams who own SCS modems which of course are quite expensive.
It really saddened me that after Microsoft went from their Windows XP operating system to Windows 7 and above that Pactor software was hard to come by that would operate the older AEA (now called TIMEWAVE) and original Kantronics ALL MODE tncs which do run Pactor 1. I finally tossed my Kantronics ALL mode when the maker stopped providing support for the original ALL Mode tnc. My PK232 tnc sits up on my [ SHELF of SHAME ] and I presently operate an SCS PTC-IIpro tnc and I have a back up SCS PTCIIIusb. It is clear as can tell that SCS is not all that interested in supporting hams with good up to date software that hams can use to enjoy some simple "idle chat". So most of us have turned to VarAC as it does have some ham operator support that has provided us some IDLE ChAT that is very similar to the Pactor proprietary code.
Thank you for reading this. You might discover a few hams operating VarAC, Pactor 1, 2 & 3 as well as Packet on 14.088. Stop by and pay us a visit.
73,
Lee NR5G
Larry K7LRB
Tony KJ5XF
Doug N3JXB
Mark KA4UPI
Greg KI4ZNH
Gary K5AEA
Wayne N9RYT
---
That's all for today
Rev: 12-JAN-2023
PACTOR IN 2023?
Occasionally I receive an email and frankly, I'm lax in responding.. SORRY !! However, I do 'look' for PACTOR signals on 20 meters during the weekends.
So, my PACTOR modem is still hooked up and ready to respond. Sadly, PACTOR modems are expensive and unlike FT-8, the cost can be really high. As I've said before, those who manufacture PACTOR modems have moved on from the "Ham Radio Proving Ground" to much more profitable commercial and military sales.
Yes, I still operate PACTOR ... and hopefully I'll find another Ham with an old PACTOR modem.
Rev: 25-JUN-2022
CURRENT STATE OF PACTOR?
Under a topic called: "Is Pactor Still Used?" the answer is given, "STILL SURVIVES! PACTOR STILL SURVIVE! Although Ham Radio isn’t particularly useful." And that is the status of PACTOR in a nutshell.
According to this article, "PACTOR 4 REMAINS ILLEGAL IN THE USA" and also "Is Winlink Legal?". Here is what is presented: "Under present section 97 rules, existing Winlink operations might prove highly questionable and illegal. There is no encryption for amateur radios, which is why the Federal Communications Commission and the Amateur Radio Association insist we must know what is being said. The ARRL has said on many occasions that we need to recognize our amateur radios."
And finally, "Why Are Pactor Modems So Expensive?". It is claimed here: "Due to the fact that the 57k modems make millions of machines each year, they cost nothing at all (except soft modems). There’s a lot of expense for production processes because they make fewer and fewer at one time." My answer is that there's far more money to be made from corporate sales that from a poorly motivated Ham community.
Yes, I still operate PACTOR ... but sadly my PACTOR connects are few and far between.
Rev: 15-NOV-2020
WHAT'S NEW WITH PACTOR?
Now and then I detect a PACTOR signal. However, I've been unable to decode a CQ. Much of what I have heard seems to be WINLINK connect attempts. My opinikon is that PACTOR seems to be rarely used anymore with Hams switching to FT8 or FT4 for digital communication.
Meanwhile, I do continue to listen and perhaps there are still a few older TNC's still on the air. So, if you're interested in a QSO, please feel free to send me an email and perhaps we can create a schedule.
Please be careful during this pandemic. Of course, PACTOR is still a safe way to communicate.
My PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 08-DEC-2018
COMPARISON OF FT8 AND PACTOR
Certainly there is far more documentation concerning FT8 than PACTOR. Considering that coding for FT8 is ‘open source’ and PACTOR is proprietary licensed, that is understandable. From an operational point of view the two modes differ considerably. FT8 is primarily as weak signal application concerned with the recoverability of transmitted data. In addition, FT8 allows multiple concurrent data streams over a bandwidth of about 2 KHz, sourced by multiple transmissions from a variety of different sources. PACTOR, of the other hand, marries recovery of weak signals combined with faster recovery rates based on propagation conditions. PACTOR also uses concurrent data streams (like QPSK) over a similar bandwidth, but also employs a variety of compression techniques. It differs from FT8 in that PACTOR uses a single transmission of different data streams from a single transmitting source.
Timing of FT8 is based on alternating cycles of 15 seconds between transmit and receive while PACTOR uses asymmetric timing of transmitting and receiving cycles based upon emptying a buffer.
Of course, there are other differences as well. PACTOR transmits a variety of data, primarily in the form of files. FT8 transmits a limited number of fixed stream characters in a predetermined sequence of message exchanges. Most FT8 transmissions are limited to a repeating set of fixed messages.
So, PACTOR can be considered a file transfer mode, with keyboard compatibility (if desired) while FT8 acts more like an automatic interface, more like a video game than a ham radio mode. All you need to do with FT8 is select a callsign (or let your software respond automatically to receiving a CQ message) and let the software do all the exchanging. In theory the operator can take a nap. Likewise, PACTOR can autorespond to incoming connect requests by operation of a message handling mailbox. There are three major differences. PACTOR can store and hold (and depending upon software, forward) messages of varying lengths while FT8 utilizes uniform fixed length message exchanges. Secondly, while both modes do time out when their transmissions go unanswered for a period of time, FT8 cannot automatically reinitiate an outgoing call and can ‘decline’ to answer a call from a station that was ‘worked’ in the past. Third, PACTOR is a separate stand alone TNC while FT8 is a soundcard driven computer program.
Both modes are robust, but in differing ways. Which one is better depends upon the intended use. While both can communicate under poor conditions, PACTOR is concerned with larger files of data and faster data exchanges. FT8 is concerned with combining and decoding multiple transmissions from different sources.
Another large consideration, of course, is cost. FT8 programs are freely distributed at no cost while PACTOR TNC’s are very expensive. As a result, the users of FT8 far outnumber the amateur radio users of PACTOR.
Well, the choice is up to you. Meanwhile, my PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 29-OCT-2018
WILL REAL TIME PACTOR SURVIVE
So I tried calling CQ on 40m, 20m, 15m, and 10m in the less active digital portion of these bands. I called CQ using both PACTOR and RTTY for a few hours. Unfortunately, I received to answers. I did copy some automatic connect attempts from what I assumed to be store-and-forward mailboxes.
What does this mean? Perhaps everyone else was on SSB trying reach one DX station or another. Perhaps the
propagation did not support digital operation.
Of course, as a 'keyboarder', I am dismayed at the lack of real time PACTOR QSOs. I still call CQ, but
instead all that I receive is repeated auto connect requests. I'm still concerned with repeated interference
generated by these auto mailboxes.
What do you think? Is the cost of a PACTOR TNC excessively high? Are other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65, and
FT-8 better because they are cheaper (free)? Will PACTOR survive as a Ham Radio mode or will PACTOR become
the home of commerical data transfer?
P.S. My PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 25-AUG-2018
Of course, I've been accused of not being a realist. "People are still using PACTOR." and "PACTOR is
better and faster than ever." That is true .. yet that original concept has been left far behind. The
original concept of improvement of AMTOR and RTTY was what gave rise to the original PACTOR. Today, there is
almost total interchangability between exchanging message on PACTOR and just sending internet email.
As a 'keyboarder', I am dismayed at the lack of real time PACTOR QSOs. I still call CQ, but instead all
that I receive is repeated auto connect requests. I'm still concerned with repeated interference
generated by these auto mailboxes.
What do you think? Is the cost of a PACTOR TNC excessively high? Are other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65, and
FT-8 better because they are cheaper (free)? Will PACTOR survive as a Ham Radio mode or will PACTOR become
the home of commerical data transfer?
P.S. My PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 08-APR-2018
Instead, my correspondent complainted, PACTOR is no longer really a "Ham Radio mode." Yes, he stated, some
Hams still use PACTOR, BUT (he went on) "NOT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED." He went on to say that PACTOR
was more of a commercial substitute for the internet, exchanging messages and FAXes in "non-real time" just
like email. But, unlike email, HF radio was being used .. in other words .. a total waste of bandwidth.
So, rather than use the internet (which it was claimed was more reliable and far cheaper that PACTOR) some
use PACTOR not to communicate, but to circumvent services rather than pay for them. The example cited was
SAILMAIL to avoid paying for HF services at sea. Or, by using HF mailboxes (MBX) on PACTOR even though they are
less reliable and "far slower" (his words) than merely using a local ISP.
My response was that some locations do not have reliable ISP service while others can screen or block
messages. The response of my correspondent was that multiple (cheaper) sources of internet service exist and
even in some "war torn" third world countries there are more than sufficient means of existing communications."
What do you think? Is the cost of a PACTOR TNC excessively high? Are other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65, and
others better because they are cheaper (free)? Will PACTOR survive as a Ham Radio mode or will PACTOR become
the home of commerical data transfer? Stay tuned, as the answer is not far away.
P.S. My PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 17-FEB-2018
There are still real time PACTOR QSOs; however, they are rare in comparison to mailbox transfers.
The ultimate in Ham Radio digital communications, continues to be merely a wireless internet substitute.
Most PACTOR signals on the air are dedicated to data transfer, including text, pictures, and FAX copies.
Not so much keyboard to keyboard QSOs.
Use of PACTOR-4 is still questionable within US ham radio jurisdiction and is mostly used to transfer
files (email, pictures, etc.) to private or public mailboxes outside the USA. PACTOR-4 remains
a substitute for those unwilling to pay for mobile offshore internet.
And the cost of a PACTOR TNC has is still excessively high. As a result, there is an increase in the use
of other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65, and others. Most are involved in direct QSO's, at speeds slower
than PACTOR. What these modes have in common is that the cost is very loww, mostly FREE. What does this
show? Namely, as these speeds increase some of the newer "FREE" modes rival PACTOR.
PACTOR STILL SURVIVES! But not much in Ham Radio. Even now internet access is rapidly increasing worldwide
which continues to replace PACTOR operations at a much lower cost.
STAY TUNED!!
P.S. My PACTOR PTC is still active. I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 20-AUG-2017
Originally touted as the ultimate in Ham Radio digital communications, it has migrated into a wireless internet substitute. Most of the PACTOR signals that you hear on the air are dedicated to data transfer, including text, pictures, and FAX copies. Gone are the days of keyboard to keyboard QSOs.
As previously mentioned, use of PACTOR-4 is questionable within US jurisdiction and is primarily used to send traffic files (email, pictures, etc.) to private or public mailboxes. Much use of PACTOR today borders, if it doesn't actually cross, into commercial activity. Frankly, PACTOR-4 remains an internet substitute for those unwilling to pay for mobile offshore internet.
The continued claims PACTOR-4 serves ECOMM (Emergency Communcations) is a ruse, a falsehood. There are so many alternate 'free' commerical communications paths
available that it renders the argument that "Ham Radio is a viable alternative for emergency communication" a joke. Much more reliable communications alternative are available today.
The use of PACTOR for direct real time communications is rare. and the number of PACTOR QSO's is small. Overall PACTOR
use is down slightly (as measured by traffic volume reports) with most units communicating with other newer communications protocols with Mailboxes (as mentioned).
And the cost of PACTOR has not decreased significantly. There is a marked increase in other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65,
and others. Most are involved in direct QSO's, speeds that are slower than PACTOR. What these modes have in common is that the cost is mostly FREE. What does this show? Namely, as these speeds increase some of the newer "FREE" modes rival PACTOR.
WILL PACTOR SURVIVE? Probably, but not much in Ham Radio. Even now internet access is rapidly increasing worldwide which continues to replace PACTOR operations at a much lower cost.
STAY TUNED!!
P.S. I still keep my PACTOR PTC active. I don't call mailboxes, but I do call CQ on 20m regularly .. usually on weekends. I'd love to chat .. if only someone would answer.
Rev: 03-SEP-2016
Meanwhile, the use of PACTOR-4 outside US jurisdiction continues to be used primarily to send traffic files (email, pictures, etc.) to private or
public mailboxes. Much borders, if it doesn't actually cross, into commercial activity. Frankly, PACTOR-4 is merely an
internet substitute for those unwilling to pay for mobile offshore internet. The claim PACTOR-4 serves ECOMM
(Emergency Communcations) is a ruse, a falsehood. There are so many alternate 'free' commerical communications paths
available that it renders the argument that "Ham Radio is a viable alternative for emergency communication" a joke.
The use of PACTOR for direct communications is rare and the number of PACTOR QSO's continues to drop. PACTOR
use is up slightly (as measured by traffic volume reports) with most units communicating with Mailboxes (as mentioned).
The increase seems to be more questionable content (sail-mail, ham email, etc.) that appears to be more cost avoidance
than anything else. Primarily, it bypasses the internet for free. Of interest, is that many store-and-forward mail boxes
that handle a lot of traffic are switching away from PACTOR to 'allow' the use of other (cheaper) high speed modes as well.
Yes, the cost of PACTOR keeps going up and there is a marked increase in other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65,
and others. Most are involved in direct QSO's, at a speed that's much slower than PACTOR. What these modes have in
common is that the cost is mostly FREE. What does this show? Namely, a speed increase in "FREE" modes will one day, rival PACTOR.
FCC whole battle of RM-11708 is to allow PACTOR-4 into the US Ham Bands. The "powers that be" continue to face
plenty of objections from CW and RTTY users. What will happen with the FCC?
STAY TUNED!!
Rev: 16-JAN-2016
The ARRL proposal RM-11708 remains untouched, at the FCC, and it remains OPEN.
Prehaps it stays "frozen" in the hopes it will be withdrawn or just go away. The Ham Radio community continues
to use PACTOR-4 outside US shores with the primary use to send traffic files (email, pictures, etc.) to private or
public mailboxes. Much borders, if it doesn't actually cross, into commercial activity.
The use of PACTOR for direct communications is rare. The number of PACTOR QSO's has dropped drastically. PACTOR
use is up slightly (as measured by traffic volume reports) with most units communicating with Mailboxes (as mentioned).
The increase seems to be more questionable content (sail-mail, ham email, etc.) that appears to be more cost avoidance
than anything else. Primarily, it bypasses the internet for free. Of interest, isthat many store-and-forward mail boxes
that handle a lot of traffic are switching away from PACTOR to 'allow' the use of other (cheaper) high speed modes as well.
Interestingly, as the cost of PACTOR keeps going up, there is a marked increase in other modes, such as PSK-31, JT-65,
and others. Most are involved in direct QSO's, at a speed that's much slower than PACTOR. What these modes have in
common is that the cost is mostly FREE. So, what does this show? Perhaps a speed increase in "FREE" modes one day, to
rival PACTOR.
The battle(s) do continue behind the scenes to allow PACTOR-4 into the US Ham Bands. So far the "powers that be" face
plenty of objections from CW and RTTY users. What will happen to PACTOR in 2016?
STAY TUNED!!
Rev: 06-SEP-2015
While the ARRL proposed RM-11708 continues to languish, untouched, at the FCC, one can only
assume that it remains OPEN without progress because there is no interest (one way or the other) to do anything.
Meanwhile, the Ham Radio community itself (from a majority of the comments given) just want to be left alone. There
are plenty of digital operations (CW included here) on the Ham bands. However, the continued use of PACTOR centers
about the ability to send traffic files that often boarder (if not actually crossing the line) on commercial activity.
The use of PACTOR for direct unit-to-unit communications is rare. Yes, there are a few PACTOR QSO's, but most of the
units on the air today communicate with Mailboxes (either small personal individual or large traffic handling types) that
pass or leave messages. Most of the traffic on message passing MBX's is of questionable content (such as sail-mail) that
could be better be handled on the internet, if there wasn't a cost involved. Store and forward mailboxes merely mimic
the internet for free.
The argument can be made that store and forward activity augments emergency preparedness. Considering that emergency
traffic nets already exist on both the internet and satellite service, it's a poor premise. Does testing the ability to
pass traffic on the Ham Bands prepare for emergency operation? Doubtful !!
So, what is the real answer? Why cost, of course. Why pay for communications channels that bill for service when you can
bypass the paying route by misusing Ham Radio. Let's be honest, emergencies on Ham Radio are few and most amateur
operators can volunteer when necessary, but sending batch messages day and night (and pretending to prepare for passing
emergency traffic) is self serving and only serves to trample on Hams who merely want to be left alone to pursue
two major purposes of ham radio, enlightenment and enjoyment.
Do store and forward mailboxes have a place? Probably ... but not on the Ham Bands. That's my opinion !!
Of course, Ham Bandplans are voluntary; HOWEVER, the ARRL is attempting to get the changes they want by making them
part of a new bandplan. Toward that end the ARRL has established a web site to "ELICIT COMMENTS" to support their
plan.
Based on what is best for the RTTY contesting and general QSO community vs ulterior motives that might exist. You
can 'look' at the ARRL survey at:
Perhaps any response should just be "NO" to every question!
Stay tuned for additional details as they become available.
Rev: 16-AUG-2014
Some have speculated that the FCC is in no hurry to address this issue. Others believe the ARRL is reluctant to pursue
RM-11708 further, having been surprised by the resistance -- much of it by their own members. So, now we wait on the FCC
to take action. Presently there is no indication how soon any action will be taken and the FCC may not act at all,
hoping this affair will merely fade into a distant memory.
Stay tuned for additional details as they become available.
Rev: 29-MAR-2014
The ARRL, anticipating an adverse reaction (no matter the outcome), has embarked on 'face saving' measures such as:
Stay tuned for additional details as they become available.
Rev: 02-FEB-2014
What is the mission of RM-11708? It has become a hotly debated question, which has encompassed two
opposing points of view:
The FCC assigned a posting as RM-11708 and requested comments about this proposal. About 900 comments and reply
comments were received. Some were terse (we need it, we love it, it proposes no ill) and others went on for
page after page of technicalities. The two camps were well represented. Some comments were technical and well thought out while
others were strictly emotional.
Some commenters claimed that many of the comments came from by non-hams, solicited by commercial interests,
wanting to use Pactor 4 as a lower cost email alternative. Others said that objections to RM-11708 were based
on not understanding its true beneficial purpose.
In the meanwhile, PACTOR NEWS has received several emails asking that we promote one of these particular views. I
have already offered comments that advised acceptance of RM-11708 should be limited by the following:
Now it is up to the FCC and their staff to wade through the diversity of comments and determine whether RM-11708
should be adopted or rejected. There has been no particular time frame established for making this decision.
Regardless of the FCC decision, the battle lines have been drawn. Both sides are marshalling their forces to
continue the struggle.
So as 2014 rolls on, the PACTOR community awaits the next step from the FCC. More will be posted later as
developments unfold.
Have a HAPPY and HEALTHY 2014.
Rev: 04-JAN-2013
TOPIC ONE: PACTOR has changed from an HF digital mode of choice to a means of specific high speed communications.
The use of PACTOR by boaters, by those participating in MARS, and by auto mailbox (Store and Forward) users has grown while the
number of 'others' is not growing as rapidly.
TOPIC TWO: In the past PACTOR modems were multipurpose. They did CW, RTTY, AMTOR, PSK-31, WEFAX, etc. Today
PACTOR modems are pretty much limited to PACTOR mode only.
TOPIC THREE: The cost of a PACTOR modem has gone up so much that it is beyond the means of the average Ham
Operator.
Now, of course, a new lower priced PACTOR modem may be wishful thinking, but for SCS to even consider creating such a device we
should let SCS know there is a market for making it. We should remind SCS that Ham Operators were the initial prime supporters of
PACTOR -- the main beta-testers of their products -- and the promoters of future sales. Now is the time for SCS to return the favor
and support their original base of users.
Frankly, SCS has not been paying attention recently to Ham users. With little to sell and few to buy, is it any wonder? Now is the
time to change that equation. If there was a new modem available from SCS with more modes and at a lower price would you purchase it?
I certainly would. Yes, now is the time to let SCS know that !!
Have a HAPPY 2013.
Rev: 30-DEC-2012
With respect to Amateur Radio it can be claimed that using PACTOR for QSO's is on life support. Yes, there are a few 'die-hard' hams
trying to preserve the originial purpose of the mode. But today, the primary day-to-day operation of PACTOR in the Ham Bands is as a
store and transfer mode used by automatic mailboxes -- and even that use is not exclusive. Of course, PACTOR is also used for other
non-Ham purposes, such as MARS and Marine.
2013 PREDICTIONS:
As previously mentioned, the deterioration of Ham Radio support by the sellers of PACTOR and the ever increasing cost of
the product explains our 2013 predictions. Yes, FREEWARE SOFTWARE and the much higher cost of using PACTOR means that fewer
Hams will bother with PACTOR.
Meanwhile, please have a HAPPY NEW YEAR. I hope to have a QSO with many of you and I do have a PACTOR TNC. I still call CQ
with RTTY, but I am not a contest player -- I like to chat.
Rev: 30-OCT-2012
What happened? As mentioned previously, there are two main reasons. First, a deterioration of Ham Radio support
by the sellers of PACTOR and the second is the ever increasing cost of the product. Yes, the automatic mailboxes still
exist and they are the primary Ham Band PACTOR use. The appearance of FREEWARE SOFTWARE and the much higher cost of using
PACTOR means that fewer Hams bother with PACTOR.
In addition, PACTOR use is touted for "OUT-OF-THE-HAM-BAND" use. PACTOR-4, the latest release, is not permitted on the USA
Ham Bands, yet ads for AUTO MAILBOX use, MARINE BAND use, MARS use, and OUT-OF-USA use are the sales and marketing efforts.
When was the last time there was a PACTOR ad in a Ham Radio publication? Is it any wonder manual PACTOR QSOs are on the
decline?
Rev: 10-AUG-2012
So, what been happening? According to many sources there are two main reasons. First, a deterioration of Ham Radio support
by the sellers of PACTOR and the second is the ever increasing cost of the product. More on these items to follow shortly.
Rev: 15-JAN-2012
In addition, so-called "Homeland Security Concerns" may exist where "codes and other means of obscuring the meaning" of
messages may be a significant problem.
While directly there is no tie to PACTOR-4, the use of PACTOR-4 on Store and Forward operations is seen as adding to the
problem rather than correcting it. Meanwhile, my sources report there are some 'bottlenecks' in the process to allow PACTOR-4
to legally operate in the US Hambands. Some progress has been made, I was told; however, there are some issues about
commerical conflict and whether PACTOR-4 (being called a closed protocol designed for commercial use) merits use on the
ham bands when royalities are involved.
More on this topic later as further news is released.
The best digital ARQ (linked) mode on High Frequency ( 3 to 30 MegaHertz ) Amateur Radio is called PACTOR.
It transfers text, files, and graphics quickly and without error. Pactor was invented in Germany and is quite popular among
hams who communicate by radio with computers. PACTOR NEWS is an online source
dedicated specifically to PACTOR.
Click here if you would like to read my biography or for information about Clayton, Ohio.
Thanks for reading.. this is Phil Sussman - N8PS - 73's
Click for link to LOGIC logging software ---
PACTOR TODAY
PACTOR & HAM RADIO
PACTOR GOING FORWARD
FUTURE OF PACTOR IN HAM RADIO
RM-11708 and 2016
PACTOR AND 2016
WHAT's NEXT FOR PACTOR
THE NEXT STEP
http://www.arrl.org/bandplan .
THE WAIT CONTINUES
THE WAITING GAME
So, now we wait on the FCC to take action. Presently there is no indication how soon any action will be taken. But sooner or
later the FCC will act. When they do, rest assured that one group or another will be dis-satisfied.
DECISION 2014 ?
WHAT CAN WE DO IN 2013 TO PROMOTE PACTOR ?
ANSWER: The expanded use of PACTOR should be the goal of most PACTOR users. That means if those in the
'other' catagory are to grow, then PACTOR should be used more often, much more often, by this group. Perhaps even a PACTOR contest can
be started to help increase PACTOR awareness.
ANSWER: SCS, the maker of PACTOR, has promised to address this issue in the future; however, results are
needed. There should be an ongoing communications issue to remind SCS that PACTOR continues to be used by a number of non-commercial
users. Perhaps we can request a date to expect an update which should be sooner rather than later.
ANSWER: As previously reported, SCS has said that the number of general Ham Radio users has declined to
the point they are a minority of SCS business. As a result, there is little incentive to create a bare bones PACTOR modem. When the
only 'cheap' PACTOR-4 modem is high priced box and the 'regular' PACTOR-4 modem is even far more expensive, here's what to do:
PACTOR IN 2013
WILL HAM QSO USE OF PACTOR SURVIVE THE ECONOMY OF FREE?
PACTOR USED ONLY INFREQUENTLY FOR QSOs
AUTOMATED MAILBOXES UNDER THREAT?
INTRODUCTION to PACTOR
THE PTC-IIpro
The PTC-IIpro was introduced by SCS. It is the new
updated replacement for the PTC-II.
THE PTC-IIe
[Click on image for full size view]
The PTC-IIe, was introduced at the 1999 PACTOR Forum by
Dr. Tom Rink, DL2FAK, President of SCS. The 'e' means economy, as the new PTC-IIe costs
about 300$US less than the PTC-IIpro.
HOW TO REACH US:
LINKS TO OTHER SYSTEMS:
Note: These links will open in a new Browser window.
Please bear with us, as this page is still under construction. Thanks!
Content suitable for all age groups
Copyright © 1999-2017 - Phil Sussman, N8PS - All rights reserved.
Rev: 20-AUG-2017
