[KYHAM] Repeater tones
Ron Goodpaster
RGoodpas at wausaumosinee.com
Tue Aug 31 06:28:51 EDT 2004
When Don and I first put the 146.790 up at Hall's Gap, we programmed the
repeater to ID and announce the repeater PL tone. Many people complained
that it made the ID too long. Then we programmed it to announce that you
could shut the PL access tone off with a DTMF code of *79 if you didn't
have PL tone capability, once again the complaints came in. As a repeater
trustee, I can attest to the fact that you can never please everyone, no
matter what. This repeater must be PL toned due to other users of other
repeaters out in the state, just outside the acceptable range ring for
coordination. A PL tone is just another tool to make more efficient use of
our frequencies. As Assistant Section Emergency Coordinator, emergency
communications is near and dear to my heart. I would not want to do
anything to reduce the number of volunteers that could/would help in a time
of need. That's why the repeater has the ability to drop the PL tone on
input. If you have equipment that isn't PL or DTMF capable, there are ways
around PL tones. However, my recommendation is that you upgrade so that
you can be a more efficient volunteer.
Thanks
Ron Goodpaster AG4TY
kyham-request at mail
man.qth.net To: kyham at mailman.qth.net
Sent by: cc:
kyham-bounces at mail Subject: KYHAM Digest, Vol 7, Issue 30
man.qth.net
08/31/2004 04:00
AM
Please respond to
kyham
Send KYHAM mailing list submissions to
kyham at mailman.qth.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kyham
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
kyham-request at mailman.qth.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
kyham-owner at mailman.qth.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of KYHAM digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: tone squelch etc (long) (Wa4dby at aol.com)
2. Re: tone squelch etc (long) (wa4qal at ix.netcom.com)
3. Possible problems with the listserv... (Pat Spencer, KD4PWL)
4. why I use tone squelch (A. W.)
5. Fw: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long) (Fred Flowers)
6. RE: tone squelch etc (long) (n4mom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:53:56 EDT
From: Wa4dby at aol.com
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
To: fred_flowers at msn.com, kyham at mailman.qth.net
Cc: k4ko at charter.net
Message-ID: <1ad.27ff8194.2e649984 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sir,
I've had my hand in several repeaters over the years and so I guess I
must
rebut your statement. The tone you used with regard to the disaster
communicator is not what I would call well thought. I've been a disaster
communicator
for 25 years. I have seen first hand what does and doesn't work on the
disaster
front. I have seen good people with the willingness to help show up with
old
equipment and new equipment they can't quite master in the programing mode.
I
think you are dead wrong to throw away their efforts by saying they
shouldn't
be there. Without flexibility a disaster communicator won't be productive.
And
if you came with that attitude to any disaster I have worked you might be
asked to leave. As for PL, if we have to use it then let it be so. I would
love
to see some open FREQ set aside that didn't need to be PL'ed but that's not
the
case. So we work with older equipment upgrades and help operators that may
not be the best at programing. But we never throw good working
communicators
under the bus because there not repeater owners or can't program. I think
all
hams young and old have a say in this hobby, I must have missed your point,
for
this I apologize.
Eddie WA4DBY
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:54:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: wa4qal at ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
To: Fred Flowers <fred_flowers at msn.com>
Cc: kyham at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID:
<8632646.1093881296279.JavaMail.root at bigbird.psp.pas.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:42:53 -0400
From: "Pat Spencer, KD4PWL" <kd4pwl at insightbb.com>
Subject: [KYHAM] Possible problems with the listserv...
To: kyham at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040830183945.02bfaa18 at mail.insightbb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Folks,
I can't confirm there is a problem at qth.net, but for some
reason a few
people have been getting error messages from the listserv. Some of the
messages are bouncing back, etc. I am not receiving any error messages,
but I did notice that QTH and QSL are running very slow right now. Al may
be doing maintenance, or having problems.
If I find out what is going on, I will certainly pass the
word.
Take care, 73, Pat, KD4PWL
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. W." <ky4sp at yahoo.com>
Subject: [KYHAM] why I use tone squelch
To: kyham at mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <20040830231336.61113.qmail at web41404.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
A house without a latch on the door is much like a
repeater with carrier squelch. All nature's little
critters come in to investigate the people that live
there, and every time the wind blows very much it
creates another annoyance-just like mysterious far
away signals and spurious noises on a repeater.
Tone squelch is just a simple latch (not lock)on the
door, which secures it against the wind and critters.
Any person who wants in just turns the knob. Sure,
some little kids can't reach the knob, but there is
usually someone around to help. (Free tone boards-
still available)- 444.900/179.9hz
Tony ky4sp
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:13:15 -0500
From: "Fred Flowers" <fred_flowers at msn.com>
Subject: Fw: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
To: "kyham" <kyham at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <BAY11-DAV344jg0rdZ1000228dc at hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Not to many. I never could, I had to find a ham. Still can't, now I get
Tony to tell me if I got my repeaters' ID right.
444.475, 444.425, 444.850, 103.5
Fred Flowers
KF4QZN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fuqua" <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu>
To: "Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS" <wa4jqs at mikrotec.com>; "Dave"
<wa4qal at ix.netcom.com>; "Brandon Nuttall" <bcnuttall at yahoo.com>;
<kyham at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
> I hear CW id's on many non-ham repeaters. How many of their users can
copy
> them?
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
>
>
> At 07:58 AM 8/30/2004 -0400, Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS wrote:
> >At 10:27 PM 8/29/2004 -0400, Dave wrote:
> >>But, how many hams out there are going to copy the tone
> >>frequency at 20 words per minute in CW?
> >maybe a better question to ask would be how many CAN COPY the cw id
> >period
> >73 T.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> >http://www.kyham.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> http://www.kyham.net/
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:19:46 -0400
From: "n4mom" <n4mom at insightbb.com>
Subject: RE: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
To: "Fred Flowers" <fred_flowers at msn.com>, "kyham"
<kyham at mailman.qth.net>
Message-ID: <LCEJJBEIHIOFHMPADHJEKELCCGAA.n4mom at insightbb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
i would not eat them on a boat, i would eat them with a goat, i don not
like
green eggs and ham
n4mom
-----Original Message-----
From: kyham-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:kyham-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Fred Flowers
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:13 PM
To: kyham
Subject: Fw: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
Not to many. I never could, I had to find a ham. Still can't, now I get
Tony to tell me if I got my repeaters' ID right.
444.475, 444.425, 444.850, 103.5
Fred Flowers
KF4QZN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fuqua" <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu>
To: "Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS" <wa4jqs at mikrotec.com>; "Dave"
<wa4qal at ix.netcom.com>; "Brandon Nuttall" <bcnuttall at yahoo.com>;
<kyham at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [KYHAM] tone squelch etc (long)
> I hear CW id's on many non-ham repeaters. How many of their users can
copy
> them?
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
>
>
> At 07:58 AM 8/30/2004 -0400, Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS wrote:
> >At 10:27 PM 8/29/2004 -0400, Dave wrote:
> >>But, how many hams out there are going to copy the tone
> >>frequency at 20 words per minute in CW?
> >maybe a better question to ask would be how many CAN COPY the cw id
> >period
> >73 T.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> >http://www.kyham.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
> http://www.kyham.net/
>
_______________________________________________
Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
http://www.kyham.net/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Support Amateur Radio in Kentucky!
http://www.kyham.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kyham
End of KYHAM Digest, Vol 7, Issue 30
************************************
More information about the KYHAM
mailing list