[MCARC] 147.285--to tone or not to tone, that is the question!

[Dave Crawford]

Not an issue with me.

73,
Dave

> On Nov 20, 2020, at 8:19 PM, Farren Constable <farren at computershed.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> A CTCSS tone would cause me zero issues.  
> 
> -Farren
> 
> The Computer Shed
> Business Computer Services
> 785.747.8100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 8:13 PM Nate Bargmann <n0nb at n0nb.us> wrote:
>> For a few days I had the TKR-750 repeater and the CAT-250 controller
>> powered up but not connected to the duplexer or antenna though the
>> transmitter was connected to a dummy load.  A couple of nights ago I
>> found the repeater being keyed by local noise.  In the past the repeater
>> has been carrier access only with no CTCSS tone required.  Mostly this
>> was due to technical reasons as the RF hard didn't have tone capability.
>> 
>> Since I have left just the TKR-750 on with the volume to the local
>> speaker turned up a bit and the noise has come and gone infrequently.
>> I'm sure it is local even though I don't hear it on the 2m frequencies I
>> monitor.  This has gotten me to thinking that it would be a good idea to
>> require a CTCSS tone just like the UHF repeater.
>> 
>> A common drawback of doing so would cause owners of older gear to have
>> to install a CTCSS board or buy a newer radio.  How many members have
>> such a radio?  Is it the only 2m radio you have?
>> 
>> Benefits would include being a good RF neighbor by not having the
>> repeater keyed up by random noise or stations working another 147.284
>> repeater elsewhere.  Also, as digital becomes more prominent, running
>> with only carrier squelch will lead to digital QRM in the future.  Use
>> of a CTCSS tone can help minimize these issues.
>> 
>> The next question is what tone to use.  Years back the Kansas Repeater
>> Council drew up some guidelines for tones to use in various parts of the
>> state.  In this area 88.5 Hz is the assigned tone and that is why the 70
>> cm repeater uses it (plus the previous radios had those tone reeds in
>> them already!).  Looking at RepeaterBook the closest 147.285 repeater
>> with an 88.5 Hz tone is located in Tulsa, OK.  There are two more in
>> Colorado, one at Salida and the other at Winter Park, both of which, I
>> suspect, would not be a problem for us.  I don't ever recall hearing the
>> Tulsa repeater so the choice of 88.5 Hz for us should be safe.
>> 
>> What are the thoughts of the group?  Would anyone have a hardship if the
>> 147.285 repeater requires CTCSS access in the future?  That is, a
>> hardship other than reprogramming memories!
>> 
>> 73, Nate
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
>> possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
>> 
>> Web: https://www.n0nb.us
>> Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
>> GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> MCARC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mcarc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:MCARC at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> MCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MCARC at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mcarc/attachments/20201120/fe666b44/attachment.html>