> "Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use > carrier squelch?
Simple Answer... If you can operate Carrier Squelch without gremlins and alpha-hotel operators causing too much grief the repeater will tend to attract more visitors, users and become a more open meeting place. > All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. ZZzzzzzzzz...... > 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. If your repeater has as a live control operator around, have him or her flip it into carrier squelch while they monitor the repeater operation. If there's no interference or co-channel operational problems you won't go to jail (Well, I'm not so sure about Texas these days...) you "probably won't go to jail". > I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Might be... but CSQ is more appealing to the casual general public. Is every Amateur Radio repeater frequency in Texas paired with a nearby co-channel box that none would operate in carrier squelch without grief? > Just wondering? > WB5OXQ So am I ... have been for years. cheers, s.