There's also an aspect to this which is analogous to the reason some people like little neighborhood bars over big discos. I personally buy into the idea that some of these repeater systems reach tech overkill. I've grown weary of intrusive courtesy tones and overused voice ID. I think some people got carried away with ACC controllers 20 years ago, and others wanted to emulate them. For long-term monitoring, a repeater with inconspicuous CWID, minimalist courtesy tones and delays to kill squelch tails gets my vote every time. 73, Paul, AE4KR
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Wagoner Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Usage of Linked Repeater Systems vs. Stand Alone Repeaters At 11:22 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Here it is mostly the opposite. People will use a club owned, linked, high level, wide coverage system before using a low level machine. Of the 2m low level machines, only one or two see limited use. There are many UHF machines in the area, but they see almost no use. I offer this only for consideration ... Here, many people do not use the large linked system because they do not want quite so large a "footprint" for their conversation. If I want to talk to a guy who is in the next town, I don't necessarily need half the state listening in. No need to tie up their air time. So - most folks seem to use their "local" repeater. Larry N5WLW
