| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.06.00 02:25l 242 Lines 7376 Bytes #-9437 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_169E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/169E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL
Sent: 000619/1802Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:53009 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_169E
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 00 17:50:43 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_169E>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:16:51 GMT
From: xx_n0zo@lcia.com.Remove.the.xx_ (Pat McKeeby)
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Hey Rob, why don't you stir the pat and ask the US Court. Some of
their decisons really suck. Look at the rights they have given
criminals, they have more rights than the victims. Who knows, you
stir them and they'll come out with the decisions that ham radio is
illegal and give all the amateur frequencies to those with commercial
interests. I think I would rather leave sleeping dogs sleep. I would
think you would better spend your time supporting/electing a
government official that supports amateur radio than stir the US Court
systems.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:30:57 -0400, "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com> wrote:
>Thank you Judge Sampson!!
>
>Seriously, I do not think any US court has considered whether Pactor II is
>legal under the law as presently written.
>
>It still may be illegal for US Hams to operate Pactor II.
>
>Even if the FCC states that Pactor II is legal (and I am not sure whether it
>has made such a statement), a US court could rule that use of Pactor II by
>US Hams is illegal under the law IF the all the "technical characteristics"
>of the Pactor II protocol were never documented publicly.
>
>I wonder whether the FCC has even seriously considered the matter.
>
>Rob
>
>"Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
>news:sknem6o1is4122@corp.supernews.com...
>> Forget about it, it's legal, now move on. Quit wasting your
>> energy. There is no case for it being illegal in most 1st and
>> 2nd world countries.
>>
>> "Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote
>> > FCC Rules 97.309(a)(4) "An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data
>> > emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
>> > techique whose technical characteristics have been documented
>> > publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of
>> > facilitating communications."
>> >
>> > So, FCC rules specifically authorize the PacTOR mode. Apparently the
>> > technique is documented sufficiently to satisfy the FCC.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:23:25 GMT
From: n0zo@hotmail.com (Pat McKeeby)
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Sure it does, anyone who wants to buy the owners manual can do so. As
a matter of fact, the manual is available for download on the SCS
site.
Pat/n0zo
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:49:48 GMT, hamish@cloud.net.au (Hamish Moffatt
VK3SB) wrote:
>Seth Miller <sethmiller73@email.com> wrote:
>> Please note that in the prior message I meant to say "in the public
domain", not
>> "publicly documented", as the latter is indeed a requirement (met in every
SCS
>> PTC-II owners manual).
>
>The PTC-II owners' manual does not qualify as public documentation!
>
>> I think the real underlying question here is... what you guys got against
this mode
>> anyway?
>
>It's proprietary.
>
>Hamish
>--
>Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:28:03 GMT
From: n0zo@hotmail.com (Pat McKeeby)
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
I believe that reverse engineering has been tried already. Think
those who did it are now in a legal session over the issue with SCS.
Figure out your own parallel scheme. The Germans did...
Pat
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:46:44 GMT, hamish@cloud.net.au (Hamish Moffatt
VK3SB) wrote:
>CAM <W6RCA@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> There is enough freely available public information on PACTOR II
>> for me to build a decoder.
>
>OK, but when I asked you to tell me where to find it, you
>told me I would need to reverse engineer it?
>
>
>Hamish
>--
>Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:11:03 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: More on WinLink.
This contains everything I got from Hans.
So how about explaining that "... know very well..." BS.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
"Pat McKeeby" <n0zo@lcia.com> wrote in message
news:394b3a4a.1013164@news.lcia.com...
> Hank you know very well what message Hans wanted you to post - your
> digressing.
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:24:14 GMT, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Got this from Hans ... guess he doesn't have internet access.
> >
> >I'm not certain what message I was asked to post ... but here are a couple.
> >Seems that Hans confused what someone else posted with my responses
> >to that post. So i get a bunch of emails from him ... eh?
> >
> >> Hank,
> >
> >> I understand you have been stirring up all kind of shit again lately.
> >
> >You understand incorectly. Read the newsgroups, respond there.
> >
> >> You know, Hank, I do not mind being critiqued nor do I
> >> hide behind a brick wall.
> >
> >You have just done so by not posting this to the appropriate newsgroup.
> >
> >> But I do have a serious problem with folks like yourself when you take
> >liberty to
> >> criticize others on nets and similar broadcast media and at the same
time
> >refuse to
> >> post messages by those who you attack (me in this case)
> >> when we are trying to clarify and straighten out your obvious
> >misunderstandings.
> >
> >What nets are you talking about? What "... broadcast media..." ? CBS? NBC?
CNN?
> >
> >> The WinLink group has done more in the recent past for the betterment and
> >growth
> >> of the HAM community than anyone I
> >> know of. I don't know if you feel threatened or abandoned
> >> or what it is, but you sure are not making friends with the kind
> >> of bullshit you send around.
> >
> >I'm not the one who feels threatened.
> >
> >> I suggest you study and learn what WinLink 2000 is really all about - you
> >might be very surprised.
> >
> >Did that, no surprises.
> >
> >> Do as you wish, just shut up and stop playing god.
> >
> >Afraid of the truth?
> >
> >> Hans - N8PGR
> >
> >Perhaps the following is what he's talking about?
> >
> >
> >> Hank, if you don't mind this post it on the newsgroups
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: N8PGR@winlink.org [mailto:N8PGR@winlink.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 05:48
> >> To: n0zo@lcia.com
> >> Cc: pmbo@observatory3.stmarys.ca
> >> Subject: Re: On the snoozegroups
> >>
> >>
> >> Pat,
> >>
> >> Please forward my reply to the sender of this original message.
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> You guys are missing the boat altogether with this gossip talk. WinLink
2000
> >> is 100% BBS compliant with any style BBS on the market known to man.
There
> >> is NOTHIG proprietary about anything WL2K does or can do. At present we
> >> support any Pactor and Packet modulation schemes available. Clover may be
> >> added in the future if enough interest exists.
> >
> >See your point 3. below. Please explain how WinLink is "compliant" if it
> >does not allow for "... interactive keyboarding ...", which is the main
focus
> >of traditional BBS systems.
> >
> >> Now granted, with WL2K with have moved FORWARD a giant leap by doing
three
> >> very important things:
> >> 1. Intra BBS forwarding is removed from the airwaves so that USERS can
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_169F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
