Collin,

 

LOL. you ARE in the middle of nowhere!  Glad Cochran is close enough to the
middle of nowhere that you can work the repeater!

 

I agree. CTCSS has it's place. just glad we can survive without it!

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:53 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality

 

Mike,
Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because 
I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier 
squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe 
in more populated areas it is becoming much more needed.

Just my $.02 worth.
Thanks Mike for your hard work, Collin

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:mwbesemer%40cox.net> net>
To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 9:39 pm
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality

We run two machines on carrier squelch. 

 

The first is located right off I-75 and we get a lot of travelers on 
it.  Most of them comment about how nice it is to have a machine they 
can access without having to program a tone. 

 

The second is located in the middle of nowhere and we're keeping it 
open in hopes to attract as many inactive hams as possible.  It's only 
been on the air for about a month as thus far we seem to be stirring up 
some interest from hams who have been inactive for a while and probably 
don't have modern equipment. 

 

YMMV.

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

146.85 (Warner Robins, GA)

145.11 (Cochran, GA)

Central Georgia Amateur Radio Club

http://members. <http://members.cox.net/cgarc> cox.net/cgarc

 

-------------
-----------------------------------------------

From: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Miller 
WB5OXQ in Waco
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality

 

I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch?  
All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard.  Also I am in 
Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on 
carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf.  I find ctcss much 
more sensitive than carrier squelch.  Just wondering?

WB5OXQ

 

 

 

Reply via email to