[KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)

[wa4qal at ix.netcom.com]

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.

> 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 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.).

> 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.  

> 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.

> 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).

> 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 don't understand why you people like to listen to the heterodyne in band 
> openings.  

I've very seldom (if ever) heard a hetrodyne 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 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.

> 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 familar 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.

> 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.

> 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.  

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.  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.

> Fred Flowers
> KF4QZN

Dave
WA4QAL