wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

What's your take on such 'robots' on HF, Carl? Should they
be treated just like any other station, or should they have
some special restrictions based on their unattended nature?

Jim, et al,

I don't think that unattended stations should be allowed to "set up camp"
anywhere they choose in the HF bands ... at least until someont *proves(
that they have solved the QRM problems that such stations can and do cause
do to the "hidden terminal" problem.

For now, at least, I think the only reasonable solution is to confine them
to a (reasonably sized - YMMV on what that means and I would need more data
on the "requirements" to pick a number) sub-band so that the machines don't
pound the human operators into submission with their (effectively)
relentless attempts to get a message through. (Let them figure out how to
"play nice" with the other machines first ...)

Should ARRL endorse/standardize/push modes requiring the
purchase of proprietary hardware and software from specific
providers?

I do not believe so ... I think that proprietary modulation techniques and
protocols are "bad" for several reasons:
1) It locks out the expermenters who could, in an "open source" model
provide enhancements, additional features, etc.
2) It prevents people from building their own compatible unit if the want to
and have the necessary level of technical knowledge and skill
3) The lack of competition amongst vendors of compatible hardware
artificially inflates prices to the detriment of the user community.
(I am big on "open consensus standards" - something I do in IEEE 802.)

73,
Carl - wk3c

73 de Jim, N2EY