[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Something I don't understand why everyone trouts TONE access as a > cure all for interference. The interference is still there and for > weak signals they cannot access the repeater because of the > interference. Sure the repeater is quiet but it limits the coverage. > > > I maintain an ARMY MARS repeater and was getting interference. I was > told to fix the problem was to put CTCSS on the MARS repeater. Come > on, the interference is still there causing the repeater to not have > the coverage it should have. Problem was solved by finding the > offending station and sending then an E-Mail. > > I do agree that if you have a number of repeaters on the same > frequency then tone is the best way to go.
That is the interference most of us are talking about, yes. > Problem with that is if you are working a repeater 75 miles away on > one tone and there is another one 25 miles from your location you are > still going to interfere with the 25 mile repeater even though you are > not heard. > > Got to be a better way. > > David That's why normally 'repeater DX-ing' is HIGHLY frowned upon, and continued abuse could be considered malicious interference. I don't know of anyone who has been cited that way, but it's possible. 'Interference' is a VERY broad term that can be used to describe a number of issues. And yes, talking to someone through a repeater 75 miles away when there is another on the same freq. 25 miles away is interference. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
