[KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)

[Ron Dodson]

>
>
>I doubt if I'll be interested in attaching tone boards to all of them, as this 
>could run in to a considerable expense.  Thus, I'll just have to depend on 
>my one main mobile radio, and, if that fails, well, there'll be one less 
>operator to handle emergency situations
>

Even when tone is on to reduce interference to our local .625 machine, 
it gets turned off during nets, SKYWARN op's and other emergency 
activiations for this very reason. Controller DTMF tone fuinctions are 
great for making this an easy chore. I also agree that repeater owners 
and trustees need to keep their info current to SERA and the popular 
databases and directories.

73,
Ron, KA4MAP


wa4qal at ix.netcom.com wrote:

>I have some mixed feelings about this.  I've interspersed some comments
>below.
>
>Dave
>WA4QAL
>
>P.S. My intent here is to present more light than heat.  Hopefully, I've
>done so.
>
>Ron Dodson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Com-Spec http://www.com-spec.com/index1.htm is just one compnany who 
>>makes encode AND encode/decode units that will retrofit darn near 
>>anything ever made for tone op's. I personally have added these to old 
>>crystal Wilson Mark IV's, Kenwood TR2400, Regency HR-2 and HR-212 rigs 
>>etc. and I am no technical wizard, not to mention having low vision. If 
>>I can, nearly anyone else who can hold a soldering iron in a reasonable 
>>manner of competence should not have much problem. These are made to 
>>either install inside the rig or many the multi tone units are in 
>>mounted in nice enclosuires to add outside your rig for mobile or base. 
>>Yes, some are a bit costly, but one the other hand as KY4SP points out a 
>>lot of fine new 2 meter rigs can be had for about $150 +/- brand new 
>>with both encode and decode in them from the factory, plus extended 
>>receiver range etc. It basically comes down to a matter of choice as to 
>>what fits your needs. If you hang on one repeater all the time or want 
>>to leave a vintage rig on a local machine as a dedicated station, then 
>>one of the cheap encode only boards can often be found free if you make 
>>it known you'd like one. To roam around, the nice enclosed muti-tone 
>>units are around $50-60 or one can save up for a new, higher powered (as 
>>much as 70+ watts) rig with all the marbles for well under $200.
>>    
>>
> 
>External tone units are an option for some of the older rigs.  However,
>I have quite a few older rigs without tone capability that I mainly use a
>standby or backup radios, including one that I keep in my "jump kit".
>I doubt if I'll be interested in attaching tone boards to all of them, as this 
>could run in to a considerable expense.  Thus, I'll just have to depend on 
>my one main mobile radio, and, if that fails, well, there'll be one less 
>operator to handle emergency situations (By the way, my main radio is 
>currently in the shop, so I'm using one of those 30 year old backup radios 
>without tone capability.).
>
>  
>
>>Repeater owners (coordinated or not) can register their machines with a 
>>host of repater directories and add their tone info for the traveler. 
>>http://www.artscipub.com/repeaters/ is just one online national 
>>directory! When I plan a cross country trip, I preprogram the rigs to 
>>change up channel to reach my destination and then switch down channel 
>>as I go home. This takes maybe 30 minutes in the days before a trip, but 
>>saves a lot of grief. My mobile stays programmed for the trips we take 
>>most often to do this as described. With radios in the $100-200 range 
>>having 50, 100 even 200 memories, it is easy to set up banks or channel 
>>blocks to do this.
>>    
>>
>
>I wonder what the source of the information is for that web-site.  I quickly
>found one glaring error on it (It has a 146.685 machine in both Lexington
>and Georgetown, which obviously is in error.).
>
>>From my experience years ago, it's almost impossible to get an accurate
>database of repeaters in an area.  The ARRL Repeater Directory should be
>one of the best databases around, yet when you use it to try and find an
>open machine in a strange city, chances are that quite a few of the machines
>that are listed are either no longer on the air, no longer open machines, or
>have changed frequencies.
>
>Additionally, while driving through strange areas of the country [1], it's not
>really advisable to divert your attention to a repeater directory to find out
>what machines are available and what tones are needed to get into them.
>It's bad enough just trying to use the microphone buttons to change 
>frequencies or scan through the band listening for carriers.
> 
>[1] One of the bright spots concerning 2 meter concerns a cross county
>driving trip I did last year.  I tossed my 2 meter mobile into the truck, 
>and kept it on 146.52 for most of the trip, and was pleasantly surprised
>at how many contacts I was able to make.  I think I averaged about two
>contacts in every state I passed through, all the way from Kentucky to
>Washington state.
>
>  
>
>>The move by SERA to eliminate the constant interference issues is a 
>>positive one, I know there are those who will feel this is not the case, 
>>but so long as communications and RFI are on the increase, we must be 
>>flexible and adapt. It is all in how complex you want to make it.
>>    
>>
>
>I'll grant that there are interference issues, but I'm not sure that tone 
>access is the best solution.  One of the problems that has occurred is the
>prolitheration of two meter repeaters.  Some of these are well maintained,
>well designed, open machines that serve the community well.  Others are 
>closed machines that only serve a limited community.  Others are poorly 
>maintained machines that are put up only so that a particular group can 
>satisfy their ego by saying that they have a repeater.  I have to wonder if
>SERA hasn't been engaged in a bit of conflict of interest by coordinating an
>excess of repeaters, and thus contributing to the interference problem.  
>
>Perhaps what we need are fewer, open, well designed, well maintained 
>2 meter repeaters.  Groups who want a repeater for selfish purposes 
>should look toward some of the less congested bands (440 MHz, 1200 MHz, 
>etc.).  Barring that (and, there will be quite a few people who are opposed
>to such a plan, given the number of 2 meter repeaters that exist today,
>and the expense of the equipment involved), maybe a change to the band
>plan is in order.  Would it make sense to set aside certain frequencies
>as "free for all" repeater channels?  Users who wanted to set up their own
>machines for whatever reason could pick one of these pairs and do whatever
>they wanted, with the understanding that there would be interference issues.
>
>Another possibility would be the use of dynamic squelch on carrier squelch
>operated repeaters.  This would require a fairly modern controller, but 
>might result in superior performance for interference suppression.
>
>  
>
>>73,
>>Ron, KA4MAP
>>
>>A. W. wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Tone squelch is one subject that the ham community at
>>>large has difficulty with for what ever reason. As a
>>>long time user, owner and custodian of both commercial
>>>and amateur repeaters, I offer the following as "food
>>>for thought"....
>>>
>>>1. SERA seems to have indicated that new repeater
>>>co-ordinations will require the ability to use tone
>>>squelch (CTCSS). I think that the ability to use CTCSS
>>>is a good idea, keeping in mind that most repeaters
>>>can be configured at minimal cost to offer remote
>>>switching between CTCSS and carrier squelch (CSQ)
>>>modes. If one can afford a repeater, the cost of a
>>>CTCSS board is a drop in the bucket.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I'm not really opposed to the ability to use CTCSS, especially
>during band openings.  However, the decision on when to use 
>CTCSS should be made with the understanding that it will lock
>some users out of the system, and will decrease the public service
>ability of the ham community.
>
>One thing I'm not exactly clear on was whether the ruling was
>that all repeaters be equipped with the ability to use CTCSS, or
>whether it was that all repeaters would use CTCSS.  There's a
>subtle difference in the wording, but a dramatic difference in the
>results.
>
>  
>
>>>2. Tone squelch on a repeater does not make it
>>>"closed". This is a big deal for a small portion of
>>>operators, who somehow become convinced that the #@%$%
>>>tone is there just to keep them out. I own two
>>>repeaters myself, if I don't want you on my "machine",
>>>I will simply tell you so- it is much easier
>>>than installing tone then waiting to see if you figure
>>>out what it is. FWIW, one of my repeaters has CTCSS,
>>>one is CSQ.
>>>      
>>>
>
>The presence of CTCSS does very little to make a repeater
>closed or open, since it's quite easy to determine the 
>CTCSS frequencies (Whether it's ethical to do so or not is
>a different question.).  However, the practical side of the issue
>is that CTCSS does make a repeater harder to use, especially
>for someone traveling through the area.
>
>  
>
>>>3. Tone squelch does nothing to prevent true
>>>interference. (Interference, meaning an undesired
>>>signal that prevents or greatly impedes
>>>communication). This is important- a distant audible
>>>signal on "Your" repeater frequency is not
>>>interference- this is called a "co-channel user"; get
>>>used to them they are not going away. I have heard
>>>countless complaints of "interference" on the ham
>>>bands, only to find that the actual complaint was
>>>co-channel users, whose weak signal could be easily
>>>overpowered by any one within a reasonable range of
>>>the repeater in question. The elimination of lower
>>>level signals from distant co-channel users is the
>>>reason CTCSS was invented, and it works very well in
>>>this role. If you hear a voice from your CTCSS
>>>squelched receiver, you can be sure it is intended for
>>>those on your system and is not some station miles
>>>away passing unrelated traffic.
>>>      
>>>
>
>This is very true, and makes me wonder if SERA isn't just
>throwing technology at the problem to try and camoflouge the
>basic problem that there are simply too many repeaters.
>CTCSS can help prevent band openings from causing the 
>repeater to kerchunk endlessly, or even locking up if there
>happens to be a reverse repeater on the same frequency
>pair.  However, if there truely is an interference problem, 
>then CTCSS won't solve it, and, in fact, may make it worse
>as people become accustomed to accessing repeaters from
>outside their designed coverage area.
>
>  
>
>>>4. "Commercial" radios VS "Ham" radios- Split CTCSS
>>>(different tones on receiver and transmitter) is
>>>rarely seen on the ham bands. All of the software
>>>programmable commercial radios I use offer split tone
>>>operation in one fashion or another. I won't go into
>>>detail, but they are well-known brands and range in
>>>age from "new" to 20 years old. All the ham VHF/UHF
>>>stuff I have will accommodate "split" tones, if they
>>>have receiver CTCSS.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I'm afraid that receive CTCSS may make the interference
>problem worse rather than better.  
>
>  
>
>>>5. "I can't afford a tone board" or "my old radio
>>>doesn't have tone". Compare the cost of a "new" no
>>>frills mobile or portable radio to the initial and
>>>on-going costs of a modest repeater. $150 won't buy a
>>>good antenna for repeater service, but will buy a
>>>serviceable portable or mobile for 2 meters.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I think we're comparing apples and oranges here.  A lot of 
>beginner hams can't or won't pour a bunch of money into a 
>new rig.  I know quite a few who got started with a $30 used
>radio from decades ago.  Telling these people that they can 
>no longer use such radios, and will have to spend upwards of
>$150 to even get their feet wet may significantly decrease the
>number of new hams.  And, with ham radio struggling for 
>survival, do we really want to turn these new people away?
>
>Repeater groups can and should expect to expend additional
>funds for their machine, especially since one repeater often
>serves many dozens or hundreds of users.
>
>  
>
>>>6. Public safety and commercial radio users have used
>>>CTCSS for years. A carrier squelch system is nearly
>>>unheard of given today's crowded 150 and 450 mhz. land
>>>mobile bands. The widespread acceptance of CTCSS among
>>>these users is a good argument for implementation of
>>>CTCSS on 146 and 440 mhz., since propagation is much
>>>the same for the frequencies in question.  
>>>      
>>>
>
>While propagation is much the same, the use of the radio 
>service isn't the same, nor is the technical abilities of the users
>(at least, it shouldn't be).  Ham operators should have better
>technical skills, while public service workers need a radio system
>that meets a very specialized need and is operable with a minimum
>of technical skill.  They want a radio so that they can push a button
>and talk to their central dispatcher from anywhere within a very
>well defined geographical area.  Hams, on the other hand, often
>go to very different geographical areas, and often use their radios
>in ways that public service radio system were never designed to 
>function.
>
>  
>
>>>Tony, KY4SP
>>>      
>>>
>
>Dave
>WA4QAL
>
>
>
>  
>