> Not sure about Texas, but here anyway -- the requirement is there > that the repeater must at least HAVE the ability to switch on > CTCSS, and the coordination is based on the CTCSS being active, > as it relates to co-channel interference.
The smart way to go... > Any organization can choose to turn off their CTCSS decoder, but > the repeater must be CAPABLE of it, to gain a new coordination, > generally. More than reasonable. > If CTCSS is still "turning people away" after almost 40 years of > it being "out there" and in heavy use for at least 30 years, > perhaps they need to be. In rural and remote areas it often ends up a bit of chore for traveling-through mobiles to locate the proper rx ctcss. Unless an area visitor already knows about the available repeater most open machines are easily missed. > Ahh yes, the evil repeater coordinator thread needs to get > going again, definitely. Demonizing coordinators is a favorite > past-time of all. > Grab the popcorn and pull up a chair! Monday group posts require a modest blood pressure stimulate. > (Not withstanding that it's obvious that Texas has... what's the > politically correct term here? "Issues." Lawsuits, egos, etc... > all going on down in the great state of Texas. No big surprise > there.) And here I thought it was a local phenomena. > The thread that doesn't start up often is the thread pointing > out that 99.999999% of repeater owners couldn't be "bothered" > to volunteer to work on a coordination body, if you asked them. Not the case up here... many good folks try but the same general circle of people often seem to cycle through the coordination group before they depart in haste for one or more reasons. > Demonizing coordinators doesn't get anyone anywhere. Volunteers > needed. Non-insane, smart-thinking volunteers, needed even > more badly. An Amen from the crowd... we sometimes have a fairly good coordination crowd who often seem to be overwhelmed by the task. I've been told that dealing with Hams in not always easy... cheers, s.
