Robert, The reason that radio amateurs discussing automatic operation would use the term is primarily because that is the term used under Part 97. On the other hand Part 97 does not reference the word unattended.
We need to insure we are talking the same "language," and not substitute euphemisms for the actual terminology that we are working with in the rules. 73, Rick, KV9U Robert Thompson wrote: > It would seem that "automatic" is a word that provokes un-helpful > discussion. Since no meaningful discussion can be held without shared > terms and meanings, maybe we could consider the following definitions > rather than using the nebulous and diverse "automatic": > > Unattended: Cases where there is no operator present in any meaningful > sense. (I am not implying that this is legal or illegal, merely > defining terms) > > Multiplexed:Cases (such as APRS, certain parts of ALE, etc) where the > frequency may be shared among different protocols all expecting burst > transmissions and possibly implementing ARQ or other methods of > surviving interference. > > Programmatic: Appropriate in any case where there is a protocol > controlling the contents of transmissions, (as opposed to > strictly-brain-interpreted methods; after all, one *could* implement a > packet BBS interface in international Morse over CW. It would be > programmatic since the person would have to do what the BBS expected) > > Most multiplexed protocols and conversations are of course > programmatic. A case where this is not so would be > keyboard-to-keyboard over unproto ax.25 packets. That would be > multiplexed but not programmatic. > > Not all programmatic protocols are multiplexed: any single-user BBS > interface, for example, is not multiplexed. > > > Any criticisms or improvements needed? > > -- > > Regards, Robert Thompson >
