[KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)

[Fred Flowers]

I put my response below.
Fred Flowers
KF4QZN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <wa4qal at ix.netcom.com>
To: "Fred Flowers" <fred_flowers at msn.com>
Cc: <kyham at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)


> Fred Flowers wrote:
>
> > Dave & everyone else whining about tone on repeaters,
>
> I hope I haven't been coming across as whining.  It was my desire
> to point out some of the counter-arguments against wholesale toning
> of repeaters.  I would hope that my 28 years of experience as an
> amateur radio operator would provide the basis for a rational argument
> both for and against toning a repeater.  I don't claim to be right (and,
> I probably am not), but, my opinion reflects the way I typically operate,
> and, I'm reasonably sure, the way many others operate.

Tone wouldn't be necessary it every Joe Ham didn't want one.  Everyone wants 
a repeater until they get one.
>
> > You have most likely never owned a repeater.
>
> No, I've never personally owned a repeater.  However, I have been
> a member of several clubs which have owned and maintained repeaters,
> as well as knowing many repeater owners personally.

I feel your pain, from being involved with club repeaters.

>
> > I wont boor you with the details, however building and putting a
> > repeater on the air is a big investment.
>
> Yes, repeaters are very expensive devices, and the maintenance of those
> machines can be quite time consuming and expensive (Just ask any
> repeater owner whose machine has taken a lightning hit.).

Everyone forgets proper test equipment.  To many repeaters have never seen a 
service monitor.

>
> > While I own, control it & have the power over who uses it, I
> > don't believe in closed repeaters.
>
> I'm not a big fan of closed repeaters, either, but I can understand why
> some groups choose to make their machines closed.

I can't understand closed repeaters.  However, if one wants a closed 
repeater, do someplace besides 2 meter & 70 cm (220, 902, 1.2).

>
> > That being said I have tone on all three of my repeaters.
>
> I'm NOT against toning a repeater.  What I'm against is the wholesale
> legislated toning of every repeater.  I feel that the decision to tone or 
> not
> to tone should be left up to the individual repeater owners.  I don't feel
> that some coordination group located in a remote area should have the
> authority to legislate that every repeater be toned.

You would rather them legislate a limited number of repeaters.  Without 
tone, limits the number of repeaters in an area.

>
> > I do it to protect my investment.  I don't want co-channel, intermod
> > & whatever other junk out there keying up my repeaters,  burning
> > up the PA's.
>
> I fully understand and support your decision (although, if keeping a
> repeater keyed for long periods of time causes the PA to burn up, I
> might suggest that you investigate a better cooling system for it).

My repeaters are in air conditioned sites with fans.  Air conditioning fail, 
fans fail, & PA's fail.  Manure happens.  Also, there are FCC rules about 
stuck repeaters.

>
> > Tony & I have 4 repeaters linked.  They are linked to a group in TN.
> > This couldn't be done without tone.  We can't have one repeater locking
> > up the whole system.
>
> In general, I'm not a big fan of linked repeaters, although I'll gladly
> concede that they do have their uses and purpose.  And, for such a
> system, toned access is totally reasonable and proper.

I agree for 2m, however on 440 it's the greatest thing since caned beer. 
I'm in favor of RF links only.  No IRLP, Echolink & so on.
>
> > I don't understand why you people like to listen to the heterodyne in 
> > band
> > openings.
>
> I've very seldom (if ever) heard a heterodyne on an FM repeater.  FM 
> receivers,
> by nature of their "capture effect" tend to lock onto the strongest 
> signal.
> However, that's not to deny that picket fencing, chopping, intermod, and
> other annoying features don't occur, for which toning may very well be a
> reasonable answer.  Additionally, adaptive squelch levels may be another
> answer, although few controller boards are built to support this. 
> However,
> I would definitely not be in favor of mandating that all repeater owners
> scrap their existing controller boards and replace them with boards that
> support adaptive squelch.

I know about the "capture effect", however the signals have to be some order 
of dB different in level.  Tone works, adaptive squelch depends to much on 
how it is setup.  I know too many repeater owners that can't set normal 
squelch right.

>
> > I sure don't want some mobile, talking to a co-channel repeater,
> > keying mine up.  My users don't want to hear that crap.
>
> Then, the obvious solution is to put tone access on your machines.  And,
> I fully support that decision.

Thank You

>
> > I've heard all kind of reasons not to tone.  Although none are valid.
>
> I'll respectfully disagree with you on this.
>
> > The one about emergency comms is BS.  If one is not smart enough to use 
> > tone,
> > that person is not smart enough to be involved.
>
> No one is questioning the intelligence necessary to use tone.  I was
> questioning the time necessary to find the tone frequency and enter
> that (especially on a radio where you're not extremely familiar with
> the procedure for entering a tone).  During emergency situations, time
> is often critical.  Seconds can count.  And, I'd much rather be relaying
> important information, rather than digging through my backpack searching
> for a copy of the repeater directory so I can find the tone for the 
> nearest
> repeater, and then spend additional time entering that tone.

One has to know the frequency.  What is the big deal about knowing the tone. 
Most repeaters will be of the air anyway.  I'll resend a post about this.  I 
think it bounced from the list.

>
> > The one about some new
> > young ham not having a tone capable radio just knocked me down.  Stop
> > pawning off your old junk on the new kids.
>
> Some of the old timers happen to have radios without tone capability.  It
> wasn't until not too many years ago that tone was even necessary.  I
> happen to have kept my old radios for backups and spares.  It's not 
> unheard
> of for a new radio to fail, and, in such cases, I like the ability to toss 
> one
> of my older radios in the truck so that I have some communications 
> ability.
> But, if all of the repeaters are now going to be toned, then those older 
> radios
> will be junk.  Thus, if my current, latest, state of the art radio happens 
> to fail,
> then I'll just have to be without communications ability, because I'm not 
> about
> to go to the expense to equip every one of those older radios with tone
> capability, just for backup purposes.

Put a tone encoder in your old stuff.

>
> > The one about someone on a fixed
> > income not able to afford a new radio is the nut-cracker.  Go to a 
> > hamfest,
> > buy a rig and give it to him.
>
> As for new hams and retirees, I know and have known quite a few who
> were really stretched to save up $50 for a radio.  Do we really want to
> tell them that ham radio isn't a suitable hobby for "poor" people?  Do we
> really want to come across as elitists?  Well, maybe we don't deserve all
> of those frequencies, and that the public would be better served by taking
> those frequencies away from us and turning them into cellular phone bands?
>
> > I went to a hamfest over the weekend and saw nice 2 meter rigs with
> > tone for $100.00 to $150.00.  Get together with a few
> > guys or your club and do a good deed.

The above radios were late model stuff with tone.  Buy one & give it to 
them, not loan.

>
> I have loaned out some of my older rigs to retired hams who wanted to
> get on the air, but who couldn't afford $150 for a new radio.  Many of 
> those
> people were wonderful additions to the airwaves, and the wealth of
> experience that they had and were able to share was priceless.  The
> public service ability that they can contribute is also appreciated.
>
> But, with the mandated proliferation of toned repeaters, those old radios
> are no longer usable, regardless of whether I keep them for my personal
> backups, whether I sell them to some less fortunate individuals, or even
> whether I loan them out.  So, that means that there will be less amateurs
> on the 2 meter repeaters.  And, I think we'll all suffer because of that.

Put an encoder in them.

>
> > Get two, the kid needs one to replace the junk you sold him.
>
> I've never sold a 2 meter radio, mainly because I prefer to keep them
> for backups in case my primary radio fails, or so that I can loan them
> out.

Put an encoder in them.

>
> > The only people with a dog in this fight are the repeater owners.
>
> I ***STRONGLY*** disagree with this statement.  If it wasn't for the
> repeater USERS, then there would be no use for repeater owners.
>
> > The users don't have a say.
>
> Then maybe we should take down all of the repeaters, since, without
> users, a repeater has no use what so ever.

This doesn't hold water.  How many repeaters are on the air & no one ever 
keys them up, including the owners.

>
> > Let it fly I have my flame suit on.
>
> I hope this hasn't come across as a personal attack.  I really don't want
> this to turn into a flame war.

It didn't & I don't either

  I'd much rather it stay at the intellectual
> level where we debate the pros and cons of toning repeaters, and can
> present all of the opinions and ideas in a cool and calm manner.  I know
> that I don't know all of the aspects of the issue.  However, I have been
> an amateur radio operator for 28 years, and a repeater user for 26 of
> those years, and I'd like to think that I can contribute to this 
> discussion
> in a calm and orderly manner.

You have.

>
> > Fred Flowers
> > KF4QZN
>
> Dave
> WA4QAL
>
>